1921-04-19

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Certified copy of a report of the Committee of the Privy Council of April 12, 1921, appointing a commission to take into

consideration the present methods and system of handling, marketing, etc., of grain. -Right Hon. Sir George Foster.
Annual report of Dominion Experimental Farms for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Tolmie.
Annual report of the Department of Health for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920.-Hon. Mr. Calder.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) presented the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. H. B. Morphy (North Perth) the fourth volume of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1920, was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention on a question of privilege to bring before this House a resolution in regard to the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) holding two seats. The hon. member is not in his seat; therefore, I give notice now that I will bring this matter up to-morrow.



INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly Vercheres) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79 to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
He said: The purpose of this Bill is to do away with what I consider to be an ever-increasing evil. The Inland Revenue Act now provides that all forfeitures and penalties imposed on persons licensed or unlicensed under the Inland Revenue Act may be divided between and paid to any officer of the Inland Revenue and any person having given information or otherwise aided in effecting a condemnation of the goods or thing seized or the recovery of the penalty. I contend that this law is absolutely immoral because it opens the door to grave abuses. The officers are not so anxious to have the law observed as they are to make seizures of valuable goods in order that they may divide the proceeds of the sale of the goods seized, and the penalties. These officers have extraordinary
powers. The Act provides that they may make forcible entry into buildings and premises at all times, break up floors, partitions, doors, etc., and also seize all horses, vehicles and other appliances used for the purpose of removing goods seizable under the Act, and all such vehicles, horses, and other appliances, apparatus and materials are forfeited and sold and the proceeds divided among the officers and the informers. I do not intend to cite many cases with regard to this matter; I will do that on the second reading. But the object of my Bill is to do away with this kind of thing by repealing subsections (a) and (b) of section 138 of the Inland Revenue Act,
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: "Introduction of Bills":
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Yesterday there was handed in, in my name, notice of motion for leave to introduce a Bill intituled, "An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Arbitration." I observed at the- opening of the House that it was not on to-day's Order Paper-I do not know why. But I would ask the assent of the House to its introduction now, as the matter of time is important.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The notice appears in the Votes and Proceeedings. The Prime Minister askes the unanimous consent of the House for leave to introduce the Bill at this stage. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman should have such leave? Carried.
Mr. MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, respecting the Grand Trunk arbitration. He said: On the 9th of the present month the Arbitration Proceedings established under the Agreement made between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government, dated March 8, 1920, ceased and the power of the arbitrators lapsed. The agreement in question provided that the hearings should be completed and the findings given within nine months from the appointment of the arbitrators or in such further time as might be approved by the Governor in Council. For reasons which I have already given briefly to Parliament and which appear more fully in the correspondence filed on April 6, the Government refused to assent, except on certain stipulated conditions, to

any extension of time. The purpose of the Bill which I now beg leave to introduce is to enable the Government and the company to continue the arbitration on conditions which the Bill itself specifically provides. Should this legislation meet with the approval of Parliament and should the company decide to avail itself of the offer embodied therein it will be enabled to have the Board of Arbitration reconstituted upon arranging definitely and effectively for immediate transfer of possession and control to the Government of the property purchased, the proceedings thereafter to follow the intent of the original agreement.
The decision of the Government not to extend the time of arbitration except upon terms of immediate possession and control, which terms are fairly translated into the present measure, has apparently been met on the part of certain shareholders and others in England with some resentment. There seems to have been an effort made to spread the impression that this country, through its Government, is dealing harshly with investors in this, one of the first -[DOT]of our big Canadian enterprises. I am convinced, and I think the House is convinced, that no such spirit has animated or controlled the negotiations or legislation or ' the conduct of the Dominion generally in relation to the Grand Trunk and that any impression that may have spread to the contrary is due to a failure to realize the facts. I therefore propose to review briefly' the history of our relations with the Grand Trunk and with various Grand) Trunk ventures in Canada. I need go back only to the years of 1903-04 because from that period dates the commencement of the policy which has borne for this country through several years past such bitter fruit and has brought to the Grand Trunk itself something very close to disaster. I have been convinced for some time and am now convinced that the inability on the part of many Grand Trunk shareholders and of some people in the Old Land to appreciate the fairness with which this country has dealt with them arises from a failure to grasp the fact, or rather a determination not to grasp the fact, that their present position is due to the unsoundness of enterprises into which they themselves deliberately entered.
By the terms of 1903-04 contracts, which contracts contain the whole of the agreement and mutual obligations entered into by the Grand Trunk and by Canada, the Dominion undertook certain defined responsibilities. The Grand Trunk undertook

certain other defined responsibilities. I say first of all the Dominion has carried through faithfully and scrupulously every responsibility into which it entered. The Dominion has done more, and vastly more. In addition to the construction of the Transcontinental Railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, which cost about $170,000,000 exclusive of interest, in addition to the guarantee of the bonds on the Prairie and Mountain Sections as the agreement provided and to the payment of interest without recourse on the Transcontinental and on the Mountain Sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific as the agreement provided, in addition to the payment of all guarantees and of every other obligation which the country covenanted to discharge, it has sought by every means in its power to make -possible the success of the enterprise and has from time to time rendered assistance on an enormous scale in the hope that the other parties to the contract could ultimately make the venture pay. I mention the following -as assistance rendered by the Dominion beyond all contract obligations:
1. In 1909 a loan of $10,000,000 was made the Grand Trunk Pacific on Grand Trunk guarantee.
2. In 1913 a loan of $15,000,000 was made the Grand Trunk Pacific on Grand Trunk guarantee.
3.	In 1914 the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific were guaranteed by the Government for purposes of completion of the system without recourse to the Grand Trunk up to $16,000,000. This was distinctly a Grand Trunk obligation under contract. Subsequently, in 1916, 1917, 1918, cash loans were authorized by Parliament and were advanced to the Grand Trunk Pacific to the amounts of Seven million and Eighty-one Thousand odd, Five Million and Thirty-eight Thousand odd and Seven million Four Hundred and Seventy-one Thousand odd respectively.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway had agreed to operate the Transcontinental. It failed indeed, was utterly unable to do so and the Government has been compelled to operate this line at many millions annual loss on operating account alone. Early in 1919 on six days' notice the Grand Trunk Pacific informed us that they would cease to operate the railway. The Government has been compelled since to provide for operation of this road under receivership and has had to advance to the Receiver some $26,607,000 for the purposes of operation and fixed charges. For the Grand Trunk itself the Government has since the

summer of 1919 advanced various sums in order to keep the system intact and enable it to continue, which sums aggregate in all approximately $47,000,000. Ihe great part of this has been advanced since the execution of the agreement for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway. It is a fact that the total amounts advanced by way of assistance to the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific Companies, inclusive of interest unpaid, amounts in the case $77,297,000 of which all but $15,000,000 is due, and in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific to $62,400,000 of which the entire amount is due. The Government has as well guaranteed obligations of the Grand Trunk to the extent of $25,000,000. It is very difficult to argue in the fact of this recital that the Government of Canada has at any time dealt harshly with Grand Trunk shareholders or Grand Trunk enterprises.
Had the Grand Trunk been in a position in 1918, 1919 to continue the operation of its system and discharge its obligations without the necessity of its continuous demands for further assistance it is doubtful indeed whether negotiations for the acquirement of the system would have been entertained or consummated. There were strong reasons from the standpoint of Canada why the integrity of the system should be maintained. Those reasons still exist. There were strong reasons as well for believing that the system, which is essentially an Eastern Canadian System, could be best operated as part of what had become the Canadian National System, which is essentially a Western Canadian System. Those reasons also still exist. But aside from both these considerations there is the irremovable fact that the Grand Trunk was admittedly incapable of continuing operations and of taking care of its liabilities without heavy demands upon the Dominion Treasury added to and indeed probably exceeding in their burden those that the Dominion had for so many years sustained. That this latter consideration was a primary factor in determining the course of Parliament there can be no doubt whatever. The Grand Trunk should not forget this element of the case.
It must be remembered that by the terms of the agreement of March 8, 1920, there . was no binding obligation upon the Government to finance Grand Trunk operations. The Government assisted in such financing and Parliament authorized assistance in order that the Grand Trunk might continue to operate and render the essential service
that it does render as a transportation system and be held together as a transportation unit. The importance of maintaining the integrity of the Grand Trunk system and preventing its disintegration and dissipation into parts and pieces appeals to every one who carefully studies the question and, indeed, can scarcely be overstated.
The Government has been called on since the agreement was executed to finance for the Grand Trunk in very large amounts. This was primarily a Grand Trunk obligation. While this was being done, we were convinced that the arbitration proceedings were advancing very slowly indeed. The Grand Trunk has been aware since the fall of 1919 that such proceedings were pending and at least from the early spring of 1920 was undoubtedly preparing their case. They pressed for a physical examination of the system by arbitrators and counsel. This caused delay of questionable necessity. The Government, on the other hand, was not able to obtain access to the necessary evidence until late spring of 1920. Notwithstanding this, when the Arbitration Board met on November 1, the Government had completed physical examination of properties and made comprehensive analysis of Grand Trunk accounts and financial status and was ready to proceed. The Grand Trunk was not. Again, when the board met on February 1, the financial statements -of the Grand Trunk had not yet been produced. Meantime, in the month of December, 1920, the Government,-feeling that the arbitration was not proceeding with sufficient expedition, notified the Grand Trunk, through Mr. Kelley, of its dissatisfaction and urged the utmost expedition in the conduct of the arbitration. Again, on January 13, a meeting was called at my instance, of the Grand Trunk officers and counsel and of the government officials and counsel. At that meeting a thorough discussion was had as to the cause of the delay and the steps for more rapid prosecution of the work. Thereupon, the Grand Trunk was definitely informed that the Government was not satisfied with the progress being made by the Grand Trunk in the conduct of the arbitration, especially in face of the heavy demands on the Government for finance and were advised that they must not rely upon any extension of the time of the arbitration. On February 7, as the correspondence discloses, the Grand Trunk was informed of the Government's position as regards extension and requested to consent to legislation providing for Government possession, upon the termination of the orig-

inal arbitration period of April 9. This condition was, therefore, at that time, clearly made known to the Grand Trunk. They had, therefore, ample time to secure the consideration of the shareholders on the question of possession, but instead of even attempting to do so, they distinctly refused to meet the Government's request. Again, on March 19, in sufficient time for a meeting of shareholders to be held, the company was advised by cable that the Government could not extend the period of the arbitration, except upon terms of immediate transfer of management and control of the railway. On March 22, Sir Alfred Smithers cabled, refusing assent. Further correspondence ensued and it was not until April 1 that Sir Alfred Smithers intimated that there was any possibility of the company acceding to the condition required by the Government. This intimation was immediately followed by the objections of the Grand Trunk authorities that they had not authority to transfer possession without consent of shareholders. It is, therefore, idle to maintain that the Government requested from the directors something they were not capable of performing, because they were given abundance of time to secure the judgment of the shareholders upon the proposal, if they had set about to do so. It is the opinion of the Government that there is no further need whatever of the Grand Trunk remaining in possession and further that it is wholly unreasonable that ' they should insist on doing so, while the financing of the property is virtually placed on the shoulders of this country. They have had abundance of time to secure their evidence and, no doubt,'have secured it. If the Grand Trunk as a government property is to be operated to advantage, it must be operated in full unison and concert with the Canadian National railways. They should no longer be operated in any degree as distinct systems, but as bne system. This advantage the Dominion is entitled to now, and, in the judgment of the Government, the Grand Trunk authorities are entirely without justification in seeking to withhold it.
By the present measure, the Government asks Parliament to support the stand taken by the Administration. We believe the shareholders should not be finally denied the the reconstitution of the Arbitration Board until an opportunity is given to meet the conditions required. By the present measure Parliament will give them this opportunity in clear and definite language and 
will give sufficient time to enable them to meet and decide. It seems to me clearly a case, not for further negotiation with the company, but for a square and final statement of what must be done, with reasonable opportunity to accept or reject. That is the purport of the Bill which I now submit for the judgment of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct your attention and that of the Government to a return which was brought down and tabled on the 11th instant in response to an order of the House passed on April 8. The return is obviously incomplete in that copies of several papers relating to the matter have been withheld and are not included in the return. There appears to be an intention to evade the order of the House. The return also includes a memorandum of gratuitous comments which were not asked for, and which are not in accordance with the facts. I might read the order of the House, but possibly that is not necessary. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the inaccuracies in the return.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon.
gentleman is quite in order in directing the attention of the minister to any incompleteness in a return, but he would not be in order at this stage in going into the details of any inaccuracies. He will have ample opportunity to do that on a motion for Supply, or in Committee of Supply itself.


Donald Sutherland: I might say that the return to which I refer is known as Sessional Paper No. 131. There are at least five glaring inaccuracies in the return. I would have very briefly touched on them so as to afford an opportunity to have them corrected, but if that is not permissible, I shall not attempt to do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is quite in order up to this point, but he would not be in order in going into further details.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the incompleteness of the return, and the misleading statements contained therein, and also in view of the fact that the party most affected thereby, who has suffered

a loss at tlie hands of certain civil servants under the control of the Government-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. On the Orders of the Day it is quite competent for the hon. member to bring the attention of the Government to an incomplete return. It is for the Government to say whether or not it will reply at this stage of the proceedings. I do not understand that the hon. member has any more rights in the matter.


Donald Sutherland: I desire to give notice that I shall at the earliest opportunity move the adjournment of the House will a view to discussing this matter.



THE CANADA-WEST INDIES TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 59, respecting a certain agreement between Canada and certain of His Majesty's colonies in the West Indies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Douglas (Strathcona) in the Chair.
On section 1-short title.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Before we
enter upon the discussion of the clauses of this Bill, I think it would be well for me to give a short explanation of the agreement which was made for the purpose for which this Bill is introduced. The relations of Canada in commercial matters with the West Indian Colonies have always been more or less close, and from a time shortly after Confederation they have been extended and improved from year to year. I shall not undertake to give the history of all the relations that have existed between Canada and the colonies. Suffice it to say, that previous to 1897, for a considerable number of years, Canada had subsidized steamship services between her ports and the ports of the different West India islands, and had sustained the cost of those services entirely from her own treasury. In 1897 the advantages of the British preference were given to the West India islands without any request for a reciprocation on their part, and steamship services were continued from that date uninterruptedly at the expense of the Dominion Treasury. In 1912, a conference was held in Ottawa between representatives of certain of the West India islands, and of the Canadian Government, and as a resuit of that conference an arrangement was entered into between a certain number of those islands and the Dominion of Canada. That arrangement contemplated- and it was afterwards approved-an agreement to last for ten years, which, of course, will terminate in 1922. One defect of the agreement was, as I have stated, that it included only a portion of the West Indies. It included the most important portion of those colonies, but Jamaica, a very large and important, and a profitable trading island, was not a party to the arrangement, nor were the Bahamas, Bermuda, and British Honduras. The agreement was attended with an improved steamship service between Canadian ports and those islands which had availed themselves of the arrangement. It was provided, however, that even those islands which were not parties to the agreement should participate in its advantages for three years, at the end of which time, it was supposed, they would make up their minds as to whether they would accept the arrangement and join with the other islands, or else forego the advantages they enjoyed. The war intervened, and that part of the condition was never insisted upon; and during the course of the working out of the agreement, all the West India islands participated in the benefits given by Canada to imports from the colonies; but from those islands not parties to the agreement we received no corresponding preference. The preference in the agreement of 1912 amounted to 20 per cent upon' a selected list of the exports of Canada to the West India islands, whilst Canada gave to those islands the British preference upon a selected list of their products. The course of trade between those islands and Canada was satisfactory, as will be seen from the following figures: In 1897, the total trade, imports and exports, amounted to $2,842,968; in 1912, it had risen to $16,161,598; and in 1920, it totalled $35,124,736,-a total advancement of trade, as to values, from less than $3,000,000 in 1897, to about twelve times that amount, or, roughly, $35,000,000, in 1920.


Mr. McMASTER:: It would not be as
much in quantity.


George Green Foster: I said, in
values; of course, higher prices would have their effect in any comparison as to volume. It was felt, however, both amongst the West India islands and by the Canadian Government, and, I think, by the Canadian people, that it might be possible to improve



even these relations between the two sections of the Empire, and consequently, after expressed desires, more or less widespread, had been on the wing ffor an attempt at better relations, a conference was called which assembled here on May 31 last and which was in session until June 18, when an agreement wTas signed by the representatives of the West India islands and the representatives of the Canadian Government.
There are certain features which distinguish this convention and the resultant agrement from that of 1912. At this convention we had representatives from all of the British West Indian colonies, and from British Honduras on the mainland, the governments or administrations which had not been represented at the previous conference now sending their representatives. And in respect to the agreement which resulted there was also this distinguishing difference: We commenced in 1912 with making a selection of articles upon which preferences were given. This time we commenced by affirming the principle that all products from either of the countries should be admitted on the principle of a general preference, and that special articles might be selected for limitations or restrictions as to the amount of preference that should be granted. That resulted in practically widening the operation of preference to all the products of both countries, with the exception of liquors, tobaccos and cigarettes. So that these two features mark a distinct difference between the attitude of the two parties to the negotiations and conduced to the general advance in the sentiment that we should all combine and, if possible, extend our preference beyond the limit to which they were restricted before. Now as a general result this is what the agreement contains: There is, as I said, a general preference of not less than fifty per cent which Canada gives to all imports of the West Indian islands, and then there is a short list, under schedule A, upon which a stated prefrence is given, the amount of preference being set opposite each article. These consist of sugar, cocoa beans, lime juice, limes, arrowroot, cocoa-nuts, grapefruit, rum, and onions.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Rum!


George Green Foster: The last two articles form quite a conjunction. I do not know from experience, but they are said very often to go together in consumption. As to that, however, I will have to refer 
to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is the list under
schedule A usually greater or less than the fifty per cent which is given generally?


George Green Foster: Well, it is less and greater; we will have to take them up when we come to the schedule. On the other hand the West Indian colonies give a general preference on all articles the products of Canada when imported into their countries to a certain percentage, and divide themselves off into three groups according to the capabilities which they considered they possessed as to the amount of preference, consistent with the circumstances, that these colonies could give and hope to carry successfully through their several legislatures. Group one consists of Barbadoes, Trinidad and British Guiana, and it gives a general preference of fifty per cent upon all imports from Canada. The second g'roup consists of British Honduras, the Leeward Islands, and the Windward Islands. These of course, are smaller and less important colonies and have their difficulties in the raising of sufficient revenue to meet expenditures. They considered that a preference of one-third was all that they could possibly manage to give. The third group consists of Bermuda, Jamaica and the Bahamas. In looking over the agreement it will be seen that there were really four groups provided for, the Bahamas standing out as the fourth group, and promising a preference of ten per cent. But when the measure was brought before the authorities and the Legislative Council in the Bahamas, they raised that limit from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent and so joined the third group, thus doing away, in effect, with the fourth group. These give a general preference of twenty-five per cent upon articles which are imported from Canada.
Then there is schedule B, under which are included flour, spirits, wines, beer and ale. In that schedule flour gets a preference of a shilling per barrel, and a special preference is given to spirits, wine, ale and beer. The committee will see, therefore, that' the special list in either case is .extremely small and comprises in all not much more than a dozen articles, so that the preference is a widely distributed one, and takes m on the general lines of preference nearly all the articles of export from'Can-ada and besides gives a prefrence, distinct

and stated, upon the articles excepted from the general preference. If is an article of the agreement and in conformity with its spirit, that the preferences herein given do not interfere with any existing preference, or with any prospective preferences, that these countries may give within the British Empire-that is preferences which colonies may give to colonies, or that colonies may give to Canada, or vice versa; both are left free as to the range of their preferential relations with each other.
Besides the interchange of commodities, there was also taken up and discussed the matter of steamship services and a tentative agreement was reached. It was felt that the increase of the preference, and the increase which has heretofore taken place progressively in trade exchange, called for a better steamship service between the Islands and Canada. So it will be found in the agreement that the Canadian Government, as the big brother, undertakes to use its best endeavours to obtain an improved weekly steamship service between Canadian and West Indian ports within three years. In so far as the eastern system of services is concerned, that is the services between Canada and Demerara, taking the line of islands along the route the vessels are to be larger than the present ones, having a tonnage from 5,000 tons to 6,000 tons, a continuous speed of 12 knots at sea, and with passenger accommodation for 100 first class, 30 second class and 100 deck passengers. The service will be weekly.
Another advantage in this arrangement as compared with the preceding one is that the colonies interested agree to pay a certain amount as a subsidy. From the earliest inception of services between Canada and the West Indies up to the present time Canada has paid all of the subsidy. In this agreement there is introduced for the first time an obligation on the islands to assist the service by pledging themselves to contribute certain amounts.
The Canadian Government also undertakes to put on a provisional service, chiefly freight with limited passenger accommodation, bejtween Canadian ports and the Bahamas, Jamaica and British Honduras, called the Western group. For a long series of years we have not had any regular steamship service between Canada and those islands, and in order to make the treaty as effective as possible it is necessary to have this freight and passenger ac-accommodation. These vessels are to be of a tonnage of 3,500 net deadweight, with a
speed of 10 knots, and in addition to the limited passenger accommodation, a certain amount of cold storage space is to be provided, if reasonably possible, to encourage the fruit business.
The agreement is to be for a term of ten years, and then it will be terminable on one year's notice. What we get, in a sentence, is the co-operation of nearly if not quite all the West India Islands in preference and in the steamship service.
So far as my information goes, this arrangement has already been approved by Trinidad, British Guiana, the Windward Islands, the Leeward Islands, the Bahamas, Jamaica and British Honduras and it has, of course, received the assent and approval of the British Government. Up to the present time we have not heard from Barbados. Bermuda has been the one colony which has not found it possible to approve of the agreement. Bermuda, though important in its way, is not a very large factor in the aggregate so far as West Indian trade with Canada is concerned, and yet it is regrettable that she has not been able to join in the arrangement. Whilst her decision has been against it, the door is not by any means closed, and the latch string will be held out-


Andrew Ross McMaster: And the light in the window.


George Green Foster: -and the light in the window will be kept burning. We hope it will burn so as to increase both the illumination and the warmth, and that in the course of not many years Bermuda may find it to her advantage to join with the rest of us in the general agreement.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was Bermuda represented at the conference?


George Green Foster: Yes, and her representatives signed the agreement with the representatives of the other islands, subject, however, to approval at home.


Mr. NESBITT:: Does the minister know what reason Bermuda gave for refusing?


George Green Foster: I have not seen the discussion that took place, but I have a, pretty fair idea that the bottom reasons were something like this. Bermuda does a large trade with the United States ports, particularly New York, and pos-4 p.m. sibly there was some fear that if she approved of this agreement, and thereby gave preferential treatment to Canada, the impending tariff changes in United States might be greatly to the Island's disadvantage. I may say

that in 1890 and 1891 I visited all the islands and had interviews with their administrations and their business men along the line of entering into preference arrangement with Canada. The time was not ripe then for that work to be accomplished as I had hoped that it might be, but I think some good seed was sown in those interviews. I found the only bar was that we then took but 'a very small proportion of their sugar, the chief product of the West India Islands, and but a small proportion of their fruit. So they feared that if they made a preference arrangement with us it might prejudice their interests in United States markets. Broadly, it was the same idea then which in the case of Bermuda has operated now.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Mr. Chairman, I have only two brief questions to put to my hon. friend. One is suggested by a letter which I received from a tobacco grower and manufacturer. Under date of April 1, 1921. He writes:
As you are interested on behalf of the tobacco growers in the county of Rouville-
He forgets that I left Rouville some years ago.
-I wish to caill to your attention the treaty with Jamaica and the British possessions that is going to come before the House, has a clause whereby the preference is accepted on tobacco and spirits.
I think it is your duty to call to the attention of the Government that tobacco and spirits are the products of farmers and of Canadian soil, and they should not be omitted. We need the export trade so that we can sell our Canadian tobacco and our spirits, and we would be very glad to receive Jamaica tobacco which is of good quality' something similar to Havana and could be substituted for same, as I worked this tobacco many- years during the Spanish-American War when we could not -get any Havana tobacco, and a preference should be given in exchange of at least 20 to 40 per cent on the regular tariff, as the Government may choose.
After very careful consideration and hard work to please and place this industry on a paying basis -from the grower to the finished product for the smoker, which means, plug, cut, leaf, snuff, cigarettes, cigars, by which every branch is protected so as to establish a permanent trade with the world, I enclose you herewith this corrected memorandum.
The memorandum does not apply to the question I have especially in mind-why tobacco should be excepted from the preference. The gentleman who writes this letter is a tobacco grower well known to the Minister of Marine, Mr. J. M. Fortier of Fortier & Company, Limited. He states that the Jamaica leaf can very well replace the Havana leaf in the manufacture of the envelopes of the cigar.

A gentleman from Toronto who is very much interested in the fuller development of commercial and political relations between Canada and the West Indies writes urging me and my freinds in the House to advocate the union of the West Indies with Canada. Of course this is a big question, and I simply wish to ask my right hon. friend if it was mooted at the conference and if he is aware that resolutions in favour of such union have already been passed by some of the legislative bodies in the West Indies. I do not express any view on the subject] I think we have enough problems on our hands and enough questions to deal with without entangling ourselves with other annexations. But the question is interesting from more than one' point of view. Besides this gentleman from Toronto, whom my right hon. friend knows well-I think he is one of his electors-we have in Montreal a gentleman who is at the head of one of the strongest financial institutions in the land-I refer to the president of the Sun Life Insurance Company, Mr. Macaulay-who has been advocating for years the union of the West Indies with Canada.


Mr. FIELDING:: Commercially only.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought that of late he had taken a strong stand in favour of political union. But be that as it may, Mr. Harry Crowe, of Toronto, is deeply interested in the project; he is in favour of that union, as are many others. Has the Government any policy in the matter?


George Green Foster: I do not want to abridge any of my hon. friend's rights, but I suggest that he consider whether we should discuss the question of political union between the West Indies and Canada on this trade agreement. For my own part, I would rather that we put our minds to this agreement, discuss its merits and come to conclusions upon it rather than bring in any other question. The question of this trade agreement is not a dangerous one in any respect; there is complete unanimity with regard to it. There might pot be the same unanimity with reference to political union and a discussion of the matter at this stage might not be opportune. The conference was called to consider trade relations and nothing else; of course, there were some social interludes to promote good-fellowship among the delegates. As regards my hon. friend's question why tobaccos were not included, he knows that these are generally left out

of any arrangement respecting trade relations between countries because they are subjects of internal revenue as well as of customs taxation. It was not considered expedient to depart from that general rule which has been followed in such negotiations, so far as Canada is concerned, since I became connected with public affairs. Of course, my hon. friend's friend may have one opinion and others in Canada might have a different view.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: While this is a very little agreement with some very little islands, and not likely to lead to anything more than very little trade, that is no reason why the whole agreement should be -dealt with in such a little tone of voice that we cannot hear about it in this part of the chamber.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman to explain the meaning of that part of schedule A immediately following the table, which purports to deal with sugar above number 16 Dutch standard? What is "tariff item No. 134," and how does it affect that part of the treaty?


George Green Foster: I thought that we might discuss the items of the schedule separately and dispose of them in their order, but I have no objection to answering the question. My hon. friend is aware that the British Government gave a preference upon the sugars of the British colonies about a year and a half ago and in taking up the sugar schedule we had to bear that preference in mind. That consideration had its share in our determination of the preference we should give to West Indian sugars. Obviously a preference would be of little use to the British West Indies unless it came close to or a little bit in advance of the preference which was offered by the Old Country, and, as a matter of fact, in schedule A, as regards the first item of sugar, the extended list of preference for each degree of polarization is a little shade higher than the preference which has been given by Great Britain for the same degree of polarization on the importation of West India sugars into the Old Country. The list gives the amount of preference upon each - degree of polarization, and it runs from 46 cents and a fraction on polarization not exceeding 76 degrees up to 88.320 and 96 cents on polarization above 97 and 98 degrees.
Then there arose the question as to a grade of sugars which are made in some
of the West India islands, which are partly refined and which are known as "yellow crystals." Those are above No. 16 Dutch standard in colour

and the Dutch standard is used in our tariff as a dividing line between refinery sugars, so to speak, and sugars of a higher grade, or refined sugars. Trinidad, for instance, in her products, makes about half and half of yellow crystals which come above No. 16 Dutch standard, and gray crystals which come up to or are below No. 16 Dutch standard. The other colonies make chiefly the gray crystals which do not come above No. 16 Dutch standard. Only about 10 per cent of the product of Demarara is yellow crystals, and in Antigua and St. Kitts mainly, the whole product is gray crystals rather than yellow. Thus Trinidad, which is a large producer of sugar, in order to get the most benefit for her trade, pressed very strongly for a preference rate on yellow crystals, which would allow those to come into Canada and compete in the general market for table use.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the preference for yellow crystals? Is it to be 25 per cent, or is it not yet fixed?


George Green Foster: On yellow
crystals which are imported for general consumption and not as refining sugars, the preference to be not less than 25 per cent, and after going over the matter carefully, we felt that 25 per cent would be a fair preference to give them and that under that preference they could possibly make some way in our market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will there be different rates for the ordinary importer and the refiner?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will see that the clause just above, the clause to which I have just referred, provides that in the case of yellow crystals which in colour are above Dutch standard No. 16, when they are imported by refiners for passing through the refineries, will have the same preference as those that are not above No. 16 Dutch standard. That makes two grades. One will be yellow crystals above No. 16 Dutch standard which are imported for refinery purposes; the other will be yellow crystals above No. 16 Dutch standard, which are not imported by refiners, but which come into the general market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The refiner will receive the preference set forth in the table?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: There may be questions of detail upon which the House would like further information, but I think the general purpose of the agreement which the right hon. gentleman is presenting will commend itself to the House and the country. There has for many years been a large and important trade between Canada, chiefly the Maritime provinces, and the West Indies, and those of us who come from the eastern provinces are aware how large a part the West India trade has played in the upbuilding of some of our ports, notably the port of Halifax, where great fortunes have been made-although I suppose they would be considered modest fortunes as compared with the wealth of to-day. There is a natural relation between the West Indies and ourselves. We are all north and they are all south; We have things which they want and they have things which we want. Therefore, this is a most natural and legitimate trade to cultivate. From time to time many efforts have been made, not always with immediate success, but always I have no doubt leading up to the arrangement which ultimately has been presented to the House. I remember when, some years ago, delegates from the island of Trinidad, one of the largest and most important islands in the West Indies, came to Ottawa with a very earnest desire that we should make trade relations with them. At some inconvenience a't the time, because Parliament was in session and we were all very busy, we received the deputation, discussed the matter fully with them, and came to an agreement which was practically to establish free trade between the island of Trinidad and the Dominion of Canada. The delegates were exceedingly well pleased with the arrangement. They went home, and thereupon the legislature of Trinidad repudiated the agreement just as Bermuda has now taken the right which she possesses to repudiate this agreement. At that time, it was I think, the Governor of the colony of Trinidad who imposed serious objection. His contention was that the delegates were instructed to go to the United States in order to make a deal with them. They attempted to make trade relations with the United Stttes, but they were not successful. They came to Canada; we met them in the spirit in which they approached the question, and we thought they had made a very happy arrangement. But when they got home, the Governor of Trinidad practically told them they had no right to go to Canada, and so the matter dropped.

Trinidad is one of the largest and most important colonies in the West Indies, and a trade arrangement which did not include Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica would be a matter of small concern. I am glad my right hon. friend has been able to get these into the group. Although Bermuda stands aside for the present, I do not think that is of importance. I believe there will be an extension of trade through this agreement.
As regards the steamship service between Canada and the West Indies, we should get the West Indies to take part in the steamship subsidies. To say that these islands are poor, is hardly correct; but from a revenue point of view they are all more or less poor, and any proposition made to them which means a reduction of their revenue becomes a very grave and serious matter, so that I have no doubt it was necessary in this instance to deal gently and moderately with them, in a mildly persuasive manner. Let us hope now that they have come to us, that in later years there will be larger developments. Speaking generally and without reference to detail, I commend the right hon. gentleman on consummating this agreement; it is a step in the right direction anyway, and I have a strong hope that it will lead to a large development of our trade. May I ask the right hon. gentleman this question-what is the effect of this preferential rate on raw sugar? Is it a reduction as compared with the tariff of to-day?


George Green Foster: It will be an increase of the preference on raw sugar. The preference on raw sugar runs at about 33-1/3 per cent. Under this agreement, it will run close to 50 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: That hardly covers the ground. Is there or is there not a reduction in the rate per pound on raw sugar under this agreement?


George Green Foster: This will be a reduction in the duty on raw sugar.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any corresponding reduction in the duty on refined sugar?


George Green Foster: That is a matter which must be taken care of in the general tariff. This is an agreement which goes into effect when it shall be proclaimed. It makes certain arrangements with reference to sugar, for example between the West Indies and Canada. Then in the general tariff the adaptations that are ne-

cessary to prevent too large a protection or otherwise will have to be made.


William Stevens Fielding: The arrangement for a specific reduction in the duty per hundred pounds of sugar may have been necessary,
I presume it was, for the purpose, but my hon. friend will see the effect of this. If we wanted to take our duty off sugar altogether, we would not be free to do so under this agreement. Suppose we want to reduce the duty on sugar. A reduction which amounts in some cases to say 50 or 60 cents per hundred pounds would be a very large reduction if the duty were only a little more than that. Where you get away from percentages in these matters you are apt to land in trouble. I suppose there is no likelihood of hon. gentlemen opposite bringing about reduction in the duty, though some of us on this side might hope for that, but when you make a specific reduction of so much per hundred pounds, you are more or less crippling yourself if you want to make a reduction. Your reduction in the fixed duty may be out of all proportion to the general duty. However, that has to be dealt with when the tariff discussion comes on. At present I would simply draw my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that under this agreement he is giving the refiner cheaper raw material but he is not giving the consumer any cheaper sugar.


George Green Foster: That has to be taken care of afterwards.


Mr. DENIS:: Has the Government of Barbados ratified the agreement?


George Green Foster: I have no news to that effect, but I have no doubt at all that Barbados will ratify it.


Mr. ROWELL:: May I ask the minister a question, and then make one observation? Will the minister be good enough to tell us how the existing steamship service meets the requirements, and how far the agreement, when it goes into effect will enlarge that service? Before resuming my seat, I just wish to make one observation. As this agreement was concluded while I was a member of the Government, it goes without saying that I believe in it and approve it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is why tobacco was excluded.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But my approval is more than formal. I believe that this agreement is in the interests of both the parties to it, and I share entirely in the belief expressed
by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that it will result in increased trade between Canada and the West India Islands. The provision of the steamship service should tend not only to the increase of trade, but to the increase of communication between these islands and Canada, and with the better understanding and the larger knowledge that comes, I should trust that the net result would he still closer co-operation between these British possessions on this side of the Atlantic and the Dominion of Canada, the senior Dominion of the Empire.


George Green Foster: The steamship service, passenger, mail and freight combined, is to my mind absolutely essential to the proper development of trade between ourselves and the British West Indies. The element of personal communication is almost as important as the exchange of commodities. We have had a fortnightly service between the ports of Canada and those of the West India Islands on this steamship route. It is the best service that we have ever had, in point of vessels, in point of their speed, and more particularly in point of the regularity with which they have made their trips, which is a factor that we cannot make too much of in our communications with the islands. The company at present carrying on the service has made its trips almost with the regularity of a railway service. People have known exactly when the vessel would sail, and exactly when she would arrive at each port on her route, and that has been a very strong element in the satisfaction that has been manifested over this service. The vessels, while of a superior type, are not the finest vessels in the world, nor are they the speediest, but they are an improvement on anything we have had before. The result has been, shown in an increased passenger traffic. Within the last year or two, and perhaps longer, it has been impossible to get passages on board these vessels unless reservations were made a long time ahead. I have had numerous letters from people in the different ports in the islands, Bermuda and others, saying how impossible it was for them to get away, and asking the reason why we did not have a better steamship service, better vessels, and more accommodation. We have now a fortnightly service with that class of vessel, with the accommodation limited to about 50 first-class passengers. It is proposed to give weekly sailings, with vessels having fully twice the accommodation.

They will carry 100 first-class passengers, 30 second-class passengers, and 100 deck passengers. This deck accommodation is necessary for carrying people from island to island. They can be carried very well on the deck in these short passages from one port to another, and a large number of people are accommodated in that way. The accommodation, then will be twice as great, with larger vessels, and fully twice the present accommodation, and the service will be weekly instead of fortnightly.
As to the speed of the vessels, a great many people used to have the idea that vessels were of no service unless they had a speed of at least 16 knots. I used to have that idea myself, but I have since come to a different conclusion. I think that what we want is a good, square, honest passenger service, not too luxurious, hut comfortable, and if possible sufficiently large for the demand. Combined with that they should have good freight accommodation, and a line of speed running up to about 12 knots per hour. The saving is immense between 15 or 16 knots and, 12 knots, and really what I do want is accommodation for what you might call first-class freights, and good reasonable accommodation for passengers.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Are they Canadian vessels that ply between Canada and the West Indies?


George Green Foster: The steamship service of which I have been speaking is that of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. There are vessels of the Canadian Mercantile Marine plying between ports here and West Indian ports on this route, but they have no passenger accommodation; they are for freights only.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Schedule B gives a list of Canadian exports which may receive special treatment in the British West Indies, but it comprises only three articles, the first of which is flour. What I have reference to particularly is the enumeration of spirituous liquors, such as brandy, gin, rum, whisky, wine and beer. I was never aware that Canada produced any large quantities of these liquors, and it is a surprise to me that these articles should appear in this list for preferential treatment. Will the export of gin, brandy, etc., to the West Indies help our trade very much? Will the minister tell me why so much pains was taken to put these products in this list?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The agreement received the blessing of the member for Durham (Mr. Rowell).


Michael Clark: I would not offer the slightest objection to the passage of the agreement, because I do not think that its value entitles it to the time we have already spent upon it. It ought to go through almost on the jump; but I have been exercised, like my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), about this particular schedule, not so much from the point of view of its trade value, as that I think it is rather a blot upon the moral escutcheon of our country, and especially upon my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) and the hon. gentleman from Durham (Mr. Rowell), both of whom have expressed themselves strongly in favour of the agreement. Here we have ex-Cabinet ministers and Cabinet ministers taking part in great meetings in Toronto to cut the people of Ontario down to buttermilk, and the very next day, almost, we are considering means, which must be almost diabolical to these gentlemen, to increase the export of rum, and whisky and gin, and all these frightful fluids, to the poor people of the West Indies.


Mr. POWER:: Shame!


Michael Clark: I am surprised at my hon. friend from Durham, and the minister in charge of the Bill, and I really think they should explain how they can give their assent .to Schedule B. I have my own views, which I will not express, upon the question that has just been debated in Ontario. I am not an Ontario man and am, of course, a free-trader; so that my conscience is easy in the matter of the schedule. But I am anxious for the credit of my country and especially for the consistency of my two friends opposite.


George Green Foster: So far as I am concerned, I shall have to let my years and ' my character do battle for my consistency. I do not think I can waste any time in attempting to prove myself consistent if my hon. friend thinks I am not. I fear I shall not make an impression on him; but I wondered, when he was speaking, whether, if he were a resident of the Bahamas, and not of Red Deer, Canada, he would have any objection to these articles going into the Bahamas if he wished to import them for his own use.


Michael Clark: I should then speak as a West Indian.


George Green Foster: Geography
would, no doubt, change the tone of his argument. I thought that my hon. friend from Halifax rather found fault with the

paucity of the list, in that it contained only these three articles, and wanted to know why it was not larger. Of course, he knows that if an article is not in that special list, it comes under the general preference arranged for.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know that; what I want to know is, are we likely to export any quantities of spirituous liquors to the West Indies under the treaty?


George Green Foster: I am sure I
do not know what quantities we shall export, but I do know that the people of the West Indies import these articles, and as they were anxious to get-shall I say -a better brand from Canada-if there is anything good about the old thing at all it was thought advisable to include these products in the list. The West Indies import quite a considerable quantity of them. For my part, I would rather see the thing out of the country than in it.


Michael Clark: Can the minister give a
guarantee that this stuff which will be taken in the ships he is going to subsidize will be carefully guarded against any marauders from Canada who happen to travel on those ships?


George Green Foster: We shall take the precaution of sending it by ships of the Mercantile Marine on which no Canadian passengers shall be found.


Mr. BALLANTYNE :: My hon. colleague has given, as he always does in regard to questions of this kind, a lucid explanation of the treaty. But he has overlooked the fact that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine have two ships of 5,100 tons deadweight each that have been fitted up at Halifax to carry 30 passengers each. They are the best equipped passenger ships going to the West Indies, either from the port of New York or from any Canadian port. These ships have two suites of rooms, one on the starboard and one on the port, six bathrooms, libraries, lounge rooms, and pianos. I do not want this service overlooked. So that if any of our Canadian friends intend visiting the West Indies on the route of these vessels during the winter months, from Halifax to the Bahamas, Jamaica, and British Honduras, and, during the open season, from Montreal on the St. Lawrence, they may be assured of the best possible accommodation on these ships.


Mr. KEEFER:: Is there any reason why some ships of this type should not ply between Canada and some of the other islands?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I usually find myself in most hearty agreement with the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), but I must take issue with him on this occasion when he charges the right hon. minister in charge of the bill and the hon. member for Durham, with inconsistency. These hon. gentlemen's conduct is of the greatest consistency; they do what they dan to stop the consumption of spirituous liquors in Canada, so that we may have more to ship to the West Indies to supply our dark brethren down there. I want to say a word in connection with the pardonable attempt of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) to praise his mercantile marine service to the West Indies. On his ships we have pianos, suites of rooms, bath-rooms, and all the drinkables covered by this bill, and altogether conditions combine to make a visit to the West Indies both profitable and agreeable.


Michael Clark: I should like to say that my mind being of a simple order is absolutely unimpressed by the legal casuistry of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). To a plain mind it appears to be a doubtful case to defend- that it is perfectly right and proper to promote the export of materials which it is very wrong to import. But that may be a trifling thing for a lawyer to get over. However, I am not much impressed by my hon. friend's attitude and I still think I should like to have an explanation from my hon. friend from Durham.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Will
the Minister of Marine be good enough to inform us! how many passengers these boats have been fitted up to carry?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I had the pleasure of telling my hon. friend that a few days ago; they do not carry very many, they only carry thirty. It was not the intention of the Canadian Government to engage in the passenger trade in any way whatsoever, but the representatives from Jamaica, British Honduras and the Bahamas pressed us so to put pn this limited passenger accommodation on our ships, originally designed to be freight ships only, that the Government acceded to their request. They did so as part of the agreement entered into and in order that we might bring Jamaica into the agreement, for the first time, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce explained a minute ago, and it must be remembered that this, the most important island of all, is granting to the Dominion of Canada a preference of twenty-five per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the agreement to be that the ships must carry at least 100 passengers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is another
route.


George Green Foster: There are two routes.


John Howard Sinclair: But
these ships are not adapted to carry out the agreement.	.


George Green Foster: There are two routes mentioned in the agreement.


John Howard Sinclair: I quite understand there are two routes.


George Green Foster: The ships my hon. friend speaks about are the ships on the western route, whereas the others are on the eastern route.


John Howard Sinclair: I quite understand that, but in the case of the western route we are not binding ourselves to run passenger boats at all.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


John Howard Sinclair: We are running freight boats as I understand it. The other route will take, as I estimate, about eight vessels to carry out the conditions of the agreement. The Royal Mail Packet Company are at present running four ships on that route, giving a fortnightly service, and we are paying them a subsidy of $340,000 a year. We are now proposing to provide a weekly service, and I suppose that will mean that eight vessels instead of four will be required. Now I feel interested, in common with the other hon. gentlemen on this side, in seeing that we should have this service if it does not cost us too much, but I wish to look at this matter in a practical way and represent as well as I can the taxpayers of the country. This service is costing us now, as I have already said, $340,000 a year and we are promising to double it. But the question is, has my right hon. friend any prospect that he can double the business that is now being done by the Royal Mail Packet Company? I have on my desk the return that was made by my hon. friend's department to the Government showing the growth of the steamship traffic between those islands and Canada during a number of years. The return goes back to 1908 and it does not show a very rapid growth as far as trade is concerned. In 1908 we had
36,000	tons-that is tons by weight; in 1909, 63,000 tons; in 1910, 66,000 tons-I

am leaving off the odd figures; in 1911,
69.000 tons; in 1912, 65,000 tons; in 1913,
52.000 tons; in 1914, 52,000 tons; in 1915,
78.000	tons; in 1916, 100,000 tons; in 1917,
94.000	tons; in 1918, 70,000 tons; and in 1919, 90,000 tons. So that the traffic is not large. Even with the four vessels that are now on the route the ships cannot be going well filled because they have an average tonnage of 4,500 tons, or a little more than that. If we give a weekly service, and take some of the traffic which was enjoyed last year, it will only afford each vessel about 1,730 tons for the trip. If we put a five or six-thousand ton ship on the route and only carry that small quantity of freight, the ships will be running to a large extent empty; they wall be burning expensive coal and perhaps coming out with a heavy loss. I would like to know what prospects my hon. friend has of doubling the traffic? If he can do that, and secure passengers as well, he may come out all right. There are some phases of this agreement to which I would like to draw his attention. For example, the average speed of the vessels on this route is to be twelve knots; at present the average speed I think, is only ten knots.


George Green Foster: Ten and eleven knots.


John Howard Sinclair: The
speed, under the new arrangement we are making, is to be twelve knots and the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine will be excluded from doing the business, I take it, as their speed does not come up to twelve knots. Then cold storage is to be provided, and the Canadian Government agrees to induce the owners to run hotels if they can. All that the Islands promise is to grant sites for the hotels and promote the enterprise in some way or another-I do not know what obligation they are under in that regard. I would like to have from my right hon. friend some calculation as to how he expects to come out of this arrangement financially. Does he expect, when he promises a weekly service, to increase the volume of freight correspondingly so that it will not cost this country an enormous amount to keep this service going? We have not had any information on that point, but I presume the department must have made some calculation as to what this would ultimately cost the country before entering into the agreement?


George Green Foster: I do not think you can come to any definite conclusions in

the matter. Let us examine it from two or three standpoints. In the first place it is not necessary to double the number of ships at present engaged on that route in order to double the service. I am told, and I believe it to be the fact, that it is quite possible by a schedule arrangement to conduct the service with six vessels instead of with eight. If that be so, then we cut off a very important part of the prospective cost. In the second place the preference that is given by the West Indian people to our products is more than doubled. There is still a very large proportion of the imports into those West Indian Islands which can be supplied by Canada and which this added preference will help Canada to supply, so that we may hope for a progressive increase of freights as a result of added preferences and of increased frequency of steamship communications. Then if you have to double, or more than double, your capacity for passengers and carry twice as many as before, there will be no difficulty in doing that if we take the experience of the last three years, because the call for passenger accommodation has been far over and above what the company was able to meet. If you take those three things into consideration it gives one reasonable ground for believing that you can get an increased service without double the present cost. Then, again, the colonies interested pay a proportion of the steamship subsidy. If my hon. friend will look at the agreement he will find that their contributions will bring in about $120,000 per year towards this subsidy.


John Howard Sinclair: They
do not promise any subsidy in regard to ' the weekly service for the western group.


George Green Foster: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have negotiations been commenced with any steamship company to perform the principal service?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will see on referring to the schedule that the Government undertakes to do the best it can to maintain the present service or one equal to until the bettered service succeeds it. The limit of time is three years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the contract being renewed with the Royal Mail Steamship Company?


George Green Foster: We are carrjt-ing on the contract from year to year. My hon. friend knows that in the last two or three years to have negotiated a contract for five years or more would have put this country at a great disadvantage. We are waiting until the time is more favourable for negotiating a bettered service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 1 think it is quite clear that when my right hon. friend enters into a contract with some steamship company to perform the service set forth in the agreement he will not be able to do it with the Canadian Merchant Marine. Their ships are not suitable for trading among the West Indian islands. I think he will find that the company with which he enters into the contract will consider it rather unjust to have the Canadian Merchant Marine ships also trading in the same waters from Canadian ports. Therefore it seems to me that some time a conflict will arise between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Railways. I am not taking the position that our ships should not be allowed to compete with the Royal Mail Steamship Company, or whatever company has the contract, but I do say that no other line of ships competing against the company which has this contract can do any business. It does not matter how many ships are put on or who are operating them, they cannot get the trade and will operate only at a loss; at the same time they will be doing an injury to the other company. It is a problem which will be before my right hon. friend presently or in the early future.


George Green Foster: I think there is something in what my hon. friend says, but that is one of the many diffi-
5 p.m. cult problems that we have to face, and my colleague and I will try to work it out without coming to blows.


Mr. MORPHY:: Who is the gentleman known "as Colonel Amery, mentioned on page 71 of the report? Is he correct when

he says, "Captain Edwards tells me that Canada is starting a big plant for the manufacture of gin"? Where is that plant to be located, and who is Colonel Amery?


George Green Foster: Is my hon. friend reading from the schedule?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, from the report of the West Indies conference of 1920.


George Green Foster: I know nothing about any Canadian plant for the manufacture of gin.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend does not find it convenient to obtain knowledge of these things; he is too sensitive. There is a plant for the manufacture of gin at Berthier in the province of Quebec, and it has been operating for some years.


Mr. BELAND:: Red Cross gin?


William Stevens Fielding: May I satisfy my hon. friend from Halifax with regard to the possibility of exports? I want to defend the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Durham for the worthy course they are taking to encourage the shipment of this hateful stuff to the West Indies. We are stopping its consumption in Canada, which will naturally leave a larger supply to be sent abroad, and we ought to send it abroad. Whisky ought to be cheaper in the West Indies after this, on account of the larger supply now available for export. A few years ago I was in the Danish Island of St. Thomas, which has since been taken over by the United States, and wihile walking along the streets of the principal town I saw a signboard with the notice " Rum Shop." I went in. But do not be shocked. I found that " Rum Shop " meant a shop where the principal article of sale was bay rum.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What a disappointment!


William Stevens Fielding: I remember the shopman, an enterprising man, tried to sell me a number of things. He said " Don't you want some good Canadian whisky?" I replied " Thank you, I am just from Canada." " But," he said, " we can give you Canadian whisky cheaper than you can get it at home." I found that this valued article could be bought in the West Indies at about one-half the price you would pay for it at home. Exporters can ship Canadian whisky to the West Indies without paying any Canadian duty, and they pay only a moderate import duty in the West Indies.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What about the excise duty?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a heavy excise duty, I forget what it is at the moment. But whisky is a very expensive article in Canada and a comparatively cheap article in the West Indies. I have no doubt, speaking seriously, that there will be a considerable export trade in whisky from the province of Ontario, notably from Walker-ville, for its manufacture is not forbidden, and I think what we are joking about here to-day will develop into quite a market in the West Indies for our whisky, and if they wish to have the stuff down there, I think it is desirable we should have the preference that is set forth in this agreement.


John Howard Sinclair: 
George Green Foster: We do not
pay any subsidy.


John Howard Sinclair: I do
not see how you can get a weekly service with 12-knot boats which you have not in your own fleet, without paying a subsidy.
^Sir GEORGE FOSTER: My hon. friend is confusing the two services. No such condition prevails with regard to the eastern service. We are not subsidizing any vessels on the western service.


John Howard Sinclair: When
would the service be considered unremunerative?


George Green Foster: When they
made a loss.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
the intention of the Government to use their own boats on this service?


George Green Foster: They are doing so now. They are using no others.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 4-customs tariff amended:
William Stevens Fielding: This clause seems to
be rather general in its terms. It says that the customs tariff shall be amended "in accordance with the provisions of the said agreement". That is a very broad, vague and general way of making amendments to the customs tariff; I think the particular amendments ought to be specified. However, perhaps it is a matter of form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Health) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, chapter seventeen of the statutes of 1911, as amended by chapter thirty-one of the statutes of 1920, and to provide:-
1. That subsection one of section five be amended to provide that no prescription is to be used more than once;
2. That subsection two of section five be amended to provide that a physician shall not prescribe, administer or give any drug except for medicinal purposes;
3.	That subsection one of section five A be amended to provide that the minister may prescribe that any person may be required to keep a record in connection with the export, import, receipt, sale, disposal and distribution of any drug mentioned in the Schedule to the said Act;
4.	That paragraph (e) of subsection two of section five A be amended by the addition of the provision that any person occupying premises in or upon which any drug is found, and who is charged with unlawful possession, shall be deemed to be in possession of such drug, unless he prove that the drug was there without his authority, knowledge or consent, or that he was lawfully entitled to the possession thereof;
5.	That -where a charge is laid under either paragraph (d) or (e) of subsection two of section five A, the onus of proof on the charge of manufacturing, selling, giving a-way or distributing any drug without first obtaining a license therefor, shall be upon the accused; and that the certificate of the Dominion Analyst as to the result of the analysis of any drug or drugs seized under the said Act shall be accepted as evidence of the nature and content of such drug or drugs in all legal proceedings and prosecutions under the said Act;
6.	That sections seven, eight and nine of the said Act be repealed and in lieu thereof provision be made (a) for the right of search by any constable or other peace officer who has reasonable cause to suspect that any drug is kept or concealed for any purpose in any premises contrary to the Act; (b) for the forfeiture, upon conviction, of the drug and all receptacles containing the same, to His Majesty, whereupon the same shall be delivered to the minister to be
disposed of as he may direct; and (c) for the forfeiture of any drug now in the custody of any court, or any drug that may be seized for the violation of any law, after three months from the passing of this Act, or from such seizure, as the case may be, to His Majesty, and the delivery thereof to the minister to be disposed of as he may direct, unless within the said period of three months it is established to the satisfaction of the court that no offence has been committed in connection therewith, or unless the court otherwise orders; Provided, however, that the provisions of the Customs Act shall apply to any drug unlawfully imported into Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
Mr. CALDER:: The present Opium and
Narcotic Act was passed in 1911. At our last session the law of 1911 was very substantially amended. Since then the department has had the experience of nearly a year in the administration of that law and the object of these amendments is to tighten up the law to some extent and to make more certain that those who are carrying on illicit traffic in drugs shall be convicted. If we take up the paragraphs of the resolution one by one I can make any explanation that is necessary. I understand that certain members of the committee desire to express their views with regard to some of the proposed amendments.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Paragraph 1 provides
that no prescription is to be used more than once. Have any complaints been received that the privilege of using more than once a prescription made out for a patient by a physician has been abused?


James Alexander Calder: A number of complaints have reached the department of abuses in connection with the use of prescriptions given by physicians for fairly large doses of narcotic drugs. One case was brought to my attention where a drug addict, without reference to his physician, used a prescription for a fairly large dose several times and the prescription was filled by the druggist. I understand there have been numerous cases of that kind, and the department advises, in order to put an end to those abuses, that any prescription given for this purpose should be used only once, and that if the drug is to be used further, a fresh prescription should be called for in each case.


Mr. MANION:: I can hardly understand the instance which the minister points out, because a druggist is supposed to take possession of the prescription. I think the trouble is that the druggist has held the prescription and has refilled the same prescription more than once.


James Alexander Calder: I dare say that is the case.


Robert James Manion: It is the refilling of a prescription without an order from the physician.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is it a common thing to refill a prescription?


Robert James Manion: Yes, it is a common thing for prescriptions for simple cough mixtures to be refilled, but prescriptions for dangerous medicines or medicines of this kind should not be refilled.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I should
be glad, in the interest of the public, if the minister would cut out this clause. It is a hardship, especially on poor people, to have to go back to a medical man and pay a couple of dollars every time they want a prescription refilled. Within the last hour or two I have had a couple of gentlemen tell me that they have had to pay $2 to a medical man, not in the House of Commons, but in the city of Ottawa, just for the privilege of getting a fresh prescription for a particular medicine that seemed to suit the case pretty well;-I might say that the reason for getting it was no breach of the Ontario Temperance Act. It is a hardship on a number of poor people, who are taking a certain class of medicine more or less continuously, to compel them to go back to a doctor, and it is an inf-dignity on the medical profession to make them rewrite a prescription which will possibly cost the man or woman who gets it a couple of dollars. I realize the object that the minister and his department have in view, in bringing forward this legislation, namely, the curtailment of the drug habit; but, after all, we must remember this, that we are legislating here for the great mass of the people, and not for the few. While we have a few morphine and opium fiends in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and probably Calgary and Vancouver, throughout the great length and breadth of this country there is practically none. I am speaking in the interest of the ordinary man who finds it a hardship to pay a couple of dollars simply to have a prescription refilled. When he consulted his physician on the first occasion, he paid for the advice and the prescription; the prescription is his, and all that this Parliament does is to say to him: "You cannot have your property refilled without going to extra expense."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The word "prescription" under this resolution refers 
only to prescriptions for opium, not generally compounded drugs containing opium.


Peter McGibbon: If you
give a prescription for an ordinary cough mixture that contains a little heroin or codein or paregoric, that prescription cannot be refilled. There may be half a dozen other things in such a prescription, and that is the kind of prescription I am referring to. If you are going to limit the restriction to pure drugs such as opium or morphine, I have no objection; but I object to this clause on behalf of the ordinary man or woman who is using these drugs more or less in prescription form. This is an infringement on their rights and we should not pass it.


Robert James Manion: I understand the minister to say that this refers just to prescriptions containing morphine and opium, is that right?


James Alexander Calder: Opium and other narcotic drugs.


Robert James Manion: A point which my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon) seems to forget when he speaks of the two dollars having to be paid to doctors on all occasions, is the fact that a man might be given a prescription for morphine or opium, not necessarily from his doctor, not knowing that it contains morphine or opium. If he did not have to go back to a doctor to get a fresh prescription, an accident might occur, and there have been many occasions where the refilling of such a prescription without orders has caused the forming of a habit in the patient. I think personally that clause is a very good one just as it stands, so long as it is limited to the provision for morphine or opium or drugs which are likely to cause a habit being formed.


James Alexander Calder: All of these amendments refer only to opium and other narcotic drugs, not to the use of other drugs at all. I might further state that a similar provision to this is contained in both the British law and in the United States law known as the Harrison law.


Peter McGibbon: I do not want to obstruct this clause, but I still desire to press my views on the committee. I object, on behalf of the ordinary man and woman, to all these irritating restrictions -for they are nothing more nor less than that. The more such restrictions we enact, the more trouble we are going to get into. Last year and the year before we passed Bills which are causing and have caused

a lot of irritation, trouble and expense to ordinary people. I fought the Bill last year in this House, and with the assistance of members of the House, we got the Bill modified to a great extent. This is just one more of those meddlesome things that this House should not pass.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Name some of the others.


Peter McGibbon: I might name them later on. It is a hardship to ordinary people, for instance working men, to have to go and pay $2 every time they want a prescription refilled, that $2 being probably two or three times the cost of the medicine. This is an infringement on such a man's rights and an expense that we have no right to impose upon him. Nearly all cough medicines, for example, especially medicines for acute, irritating coughs, contain some opium or the by-products of opium, and you are going at once to wipe out the possibility of refilling any of that class of prescription without a man being compelled to go back to a medical man and pay him a dollar or two dollars simply for doing a little clerical work and signing his name. The only object in this clause is that you are endeavouring to curtail, I was going to say the establishment of drug fiends. If you cannot do this in any other way, then restrict the provision to the large cities, because there are practically no drug fiends in the country districts. In my twenty years' practice in medicine, I have met only one drug fiend, and I think my practice is a fair average in a rural district. Why are you going to penalize all the rest of the people for the sake of a few maniacs in the cities?


Joseph Archambault: Is it not a fact that there are many patent medicines for which you do not need to have any prescription and which contain many narcotic drugs?


Peter McGibbon: Not now. That is one of the things that we practically put out of business a year ago. There are a few proprietary medicines where the prescription is printed on the bottle, which contain a certain quantity of narcotic drugs-I think, about one grain to two ounces, a very small amount.


Joseph Archambault: You can buy
those patent medicines without a prescription?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was going to suggest that the minister will probably
expedite the final passage of his Bill if he secures the printing as early as possible and the circulating of it somewhat, so that the drug trade, and also representatives of the medical profession, may have an opportunity of making representations to him.


James Alexander Calder: If there is no objection on the part of the Committee, perhaps it might be as well to pass the resolution on the understanding that the House is not committing itself to the principle. Then we can get the Bill printed and distributed, so that hon. members and people interested outside the House may beeome familiar with its provisions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very much
impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon). I can well imagine the case of a man who lives perhaps 20 or 30 miles from a doctor wanting to have his prescription refilled at a little drug store away out in the country. He is not a drug fiend and has no propensities in that direction. His child or his wife may have been ill, and the medicine obtained on the first prescription may have been used. As it is now, he could go to the drug store and have his prescription refilled, but under this Bill he would have to go perhaps twenty or twenty-five miles to a doctor just for the purpose of having another date put on the prescription. I would consider that a great hardship, and I think this difficulty should be eliminated.
I was going to remind the minister that we had legislation of this very character not long ago, and it was referred to a special committee. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) will remember that, because I think he was Chairman of the committee. If the minister would agree to submitting both his Bill and the resolution to a small special committee composed of doctors and druggists, I would have no objection in the world to the resolution passing on that understanding. They could then trim the legislation to meet the circumstances of the case.


James Alexander Calder: It seems to me that some suggestion of that kind should be carried out, and that it would result in our makifig much greater progress. My suggestion for the time being would be that the resolution be passed, and that the Bill be printed and distributed, and receive its second reading. Then it can be referred to a small special committee to thresh out the details and hear whatever suggestions people who may appear before the committee desire to make.
22C6

Mr. DuTREMBLAY: I see that paragraph 6 provides "for the right of search by any constable or other peace officer who has reasonable cause to suspect that any drug is kept or concealed for any purpose in any premises contrary to the Act." Do I understand that a constable can enter any premises without a sworn complaint first being made? Our criminal law provides that no constable shall enter private premises without having a sworn complaint, and if the constable is to be allowed to enter any premises just on suspicion, I think the consequences will be very disagreeable for the general public.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: I cannot agree with the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) that this Bill should be referred to a special committee composed only of doctors and druggists. There are members of the House who are neither doctors or druggists who are interested in this legislation.
I am in entire accord with my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) in regard to this Bill. He has told the committee that he has practised medicine for twenty years, so surely he should know whereof he speaks. I take the same stand that I took last year on legislation- of this character. I think a patient who has received a prescription from his family doctor should have the right to have it refilled as he requires, without having to go back to the doctor and pay $2 for another prescription. It would be a great hardship for people who live in the country to have to go several miles into town to get a doctor to authorize the refilling of a prescription.


James Alexander Calder: On the other hand, I am sure the hon. member will agree that a drug fiend who gets a prescription from a doctor calling for a large dose of morphine should not have the right to have that prescription refilled by the druggist as often as he pleases. That is the other side of the question. I think there is something in the argument of my hon. friend from Muskoka, and I think it would be* possible for us to find a middle course which would take care of the classes of cases to which he refers. But as for the drug fiend, I think both for his own sake and that of the druggist there should be some provision whereby a prescription calling for large doses of the drug to which he is addicted should not be filled without the approval of the doctor.


Mr. FOURNIER:: I have been a druggist long enough, I think, to speak with a little

authority on this question. It is a well-known fact that to-day a good druggist will not refill a prescription containing narcotics without first telephoning the doctor or getting a note from him. I do not see the sense in having so many amendments to the law. I think this particular provision would work a great hardship, and I am very much in favour of what my hon. friend from Muskoka has said. There are cases where a prescription must be refilled. As a rule the physician writes on the prescription " to be filled only once," and the druggist gets in touch with the doctor before refilling it. The druggists are up-to-date, law-abiding citizens who can be trusted to do their duty, and I do not think we should have provisions of this kind, which in my opinion go too far.


Robert James Manion: The point made by my hon friend is correct, but it is one of the best arguments for the clause. He points out that a good druggist generally communicates with the doctor before refilling a prescription calling for morphine or opium. If that is the case, there is all the more reason wlhy a druggist who is not honest should be compelled to live up to the law and do what the honest druggist does. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria pointed out that he did not see any reason why a prescription that was filled for the father of a family should not be used for his child if it had a cold. There, again, is another argument for this clause, for while morphine may safely be given in certain doses to grown-ups, it cannot to young children.
I think the hon. member from Muskoka was a little too strong in his application that the medical men wanted $2 for the refilling of a prescription. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is any class of men in this country wfho do more for charity than do the medical men, including my hon. friend from Muskoka and others. I have never seen this Bill until to-day, but I believe that this clause was put in for the purpose of protecting people from becoming dope fiends, and personally I have heard no arguments why the clause should not be carried.


John Flaws Reid: Is it possible to write such a prescription as would prevent a mother from giving to her child medicine which her husband might be taking?


Robert James Manion: As I pointed out before, nearly all druggists will re-fill a prescription for the ordinary cough medicine, and it is only where is contains opium or mor-

phine, or some narcotic drug, that they should be required to ring up the doctor on the telephone, which is always practicable, before repeating the prescription. This clause serves to prevent a druggist from enabling an otherwise honest man or woman to become a dope fiend by getting too large doses of morphine or opium. The ordinary prescription can be refilled without difficulty. As regards the patient whose pitiful plight has been depicted, who has to drive seven or ten, or fifteen miles to a doctor's office, I do not think that there is any difficulty that might not be easily overcome. After all, there is a telephone system in practically every part of the country.


John Flaws Reid: No, no.


Robert James Manion: Well, in very many parts of the country, at any rate, and I am safe in saying that there is telephone connection between every drug store and the doctors; and in the refilling of prescriptions the telephone is made use of in a large proportion of cases.


Joseph Archambault: Is it a fact that most cough medicines contain narcotics?


Robert James Manion: No, it is not.


Peter McGibbon: I may remind the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that his clause prevents refilling by telephone conversation.


James Alexander Calder: If the suggestion that
has been made is to be carried out, I think we might postpone further discussion at the present time, because the whole matter will have to be gone over again. If we pass the resolution now, and afterwards refer the Bill to a special committee, I think we might very well, at this stage, postpone the discussion of the subject. I agree with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) that if we constitute a committee of the kind suggested, it should not be composed entirely of doctors, but others should be represented.


Mr. CAHILL:: Will the minister explain clause 2?


James Alexander Calder: This clause provides that physicians shall not be allowed to sell narcotic drugs except for medicinal purposes, on order or prescription. I am advised by the officers of the department that there are a certain number of physicians throughout the country who commercialize in this business. They secure fairly large quantities of these drugs, as they have a right to do, but instead of dispensing them on prescription to
patients, they simply make a business of selling to drug addicts, and the object of the clause is to put an end to that practice. The physician who disposes of these drugs must do so only on prescription; that is the sole object of the proposed amendment.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the doctor in the
country not be able to supply drugs to his patients without prescription to be filled by a druggist?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will
understand-


Frank S. Cahill: Let the minister explain it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to
allowing the minister to answer the question, but I could give the hon. member an explanation.


Frank S. Cahill: I understood from the
minister's remarks that a doctor would not be able to furnish these drugs to his own patients without first having a prescription filled by a druggist.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Frank S. Cahill: Then will the minister
explain the clause more fully?


James Alexander Calder: I should imagine that
where a doctor himself sells these drugs he must keep a record of his prescriptions. I am not quite certain as to that point, but I think that is the provision of the law. My impression is that if the doctor sells these drugs he must have a record of each sale in the form of a prescription which can be checked by the officers of the law.


Frank S. Cahill: A prescription which he may fill himself?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Mr. EULER:: I do not think that the law does provide that the doctor shall keep such a record. I know that when we were discussing the matter last year it was provided that druggists should keep a record, but I am pretty certain that there was nothing that compelled the doctor to do the same. The suggestion was made, but I do not think it was carried.


Mr. BLAKE:: The object of this Bill is to prevent persons who have a tendency towards the drug habit from becoming what are known as dope fiends. If a man has a broken leg, in the United States, under the Harrison Act there must be a record if he is given a quarter of a grain or half a grain of morphine. We do not



need such restrictions in Canada. This resolution covers that point, for it provides that no drugs shall be given except for medicinal purposes, and on prescription. I remember a case in one of the cities in Canada where a doctor was approached by a drug fiend and offered a fabulous sum for an ounce of morphine. The doctor proceeded to procure the drug, but by a very ingenious trick on the part of the "patient" he was nicely taken in. He had arranged to meet his client at a hotel, and after delivering the drug, he was instructed to go to another room to receive the price of the sale; but when he went there was nobody there, and, of course, he did hot get the money he expected. The drug ring to-day is the greatest menace we have to contend with in Canada. Winnipeg is one of the important centres for the distribution of drugs, and, according to this morning's papers, $35,000 worth of drugs, which would have been sold at double that figure, were caught on one of the chief men in the drug ring in Toronto. Now, these restrictions cannot be made too stringent if we are to stamp out the drug traffic. The provision that no prescription shall be used more than once is, I think, necessary and wise, because in the large cities certain people have acquired the drug habit, and if they were allowed to refill a prescription indefinitely you might as well abandon any attempt to control the traffic. The suggestion that this resolution will work a hardship on those people who obtain cough medicines has nc weight, in my opinion. I cannot recall, in the course of my practice last year, any case in which such a prescription has been filled more than twice, and it is easy to renew the order. I do not think, therefore, that there will be any hardship on anyone. We must restrict the sale of these drugs, and to do so we must prevent the indiscriminate use of them. I have gone over these amendments with the officers of the Health Department, whose explanations are entirely satisfactory. In connection with almost every Act, some loopholes are always discovered after the Act has operated a certain time, and steps should be taken without delay, to repair them and make the law as workable as possible. I do not think that more than once or twice in a large practice will there be found any case of real hardship from the operation of section 1.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the suggestion I have made regarding the matter of sworn complaint be embodied in the Bill?


James Alexander Calder: The whole matter will be subject to further discussion. If the Bill goes to a special committee that committee will consider all its provisions and it will be reported back to the House, and will go through Committee of the Whole in the usual way. The passing of the resolution now does not necessarily mean that its exact terms will be finally embodied in the legislation that will be passed by the House.
Resolution reported.
Hon. Mr. Calder thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, founded on the resolution, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance), moved that Bill No. 77, to extend the time for the payment of certain debentures issued by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal be read the second time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On Clause 1-Date for payment of debentures extended for twenty-five years.
Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister kindly
explain.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: As stated
when the resolution was under discussion this is a purely formal Bill. Authority was given to the port authorities of Montreal under the statute to issue these debentures. They are a permanent investment, and the object of the Bill is simply to renew the date for payment. It was never intended that these debentures ever would or ever could be paid. The Harbour Commissioners are paying the interest and, as a matter >of book-keeping it is better to have a debenture earning than to have it overdue.


John Howard Sinclair: Who
are the holders of these bonds?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Dominion.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister include these debentures among his active securities?


Henry Lumley Drayton: These constitute one of our active securities. Most of our securities, I am sorry to say, are inactive.


Mr. PARENT:: Have the Harbour Commissioners paid interest on the bonds?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, interest
has been paid regularly by the port of Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there not several
sets of bonds? I understand the Government of Canada has made large advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal at various times. Will the minister say whether the Harbour Commissioners have always paid interest not only on the bonds we are now dealing with but on all their bonds?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
interest in arrear that I know of. I can assure the hon. gentleman that all interest has been paid.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance), moved that Bill No. 78, to amend the Currency Act, 1910, be read the second time.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Clause 1-nickel five-cent coins authorized of fixed weight and fineness.
Mr. CROWE:: What is the weight of the present five-cent piece?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The weight
of the new five-cent piece is entirely different; I forget for the moment what it is exactly.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: My reason for asking is
that when you are using the pay telephone you have to put five cents in the slot. Will the new five-cent piece be suitable for that purpose? Has there been any objection at all raised to the new five-cents piece by the Telephone Companies, or by people who now use the pay telephone?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No objection
has been made to me by anybody.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to know from the minister if he has in contemplation any plan looking to a return to the gold standard?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at the
moment.


John Howard Sinclair: I think this is the proper place to mention the
subject. My hon. friend knows that the bonds of the Canadian Northern are not convertible into cash. That being so I wonder how he arrived at the fact that they were good security for the purpose of issuing Dominion notes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is something I am afraid I will have to ask my hon. friend. That is something that was done by the House in 1916 or 1917 if I remember right.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend ought to satisfy the House in regard to that matter some time or other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2: Correct gold coin not to be melted down-Penalty.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing that a man has a gold loving cup that he wants to convert into some other form, has he to go to the minister to get permission as to how he shall remodel it; or if he wants to erect unto himself a golden calf, as in the old days, must he go to the minister to get hi? model approved?


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is the hon. member afraid of waking somebody up in the chamber? Why is he so very soft in his speech? We would like to hear what is going on as well as hon. members at the other end of the chamber.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no provision in this Bill which prevents any dealing in the ornaments to which the hon. gentleman refers, whether they be gold loving cups or golden calves. This is carrying into effect the English Act which provides:
It shall not be lawful for any person, except under and in pursuance of a license granted by the Treasury, to melt down, break up, or use ^otherwise than as currency any gold or silver coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or in any British possession or foreign country.
Then there is this penalty clause:
If any person acts in contravention of this section, or acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any condition attached to a license granted under this section, he shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and in addition to any other punishment, the court dealing with the case may order the articles in respect of which the offence was committed to be forfeited.

We have changed that, as hon. gentlemen will see, by cutting down the penalties.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie for Committee of Supply:
['Under protest and on division.']
Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day were proceeded with this afternoon I endeavoured to direct the attention of the Government and of the minister to whose department the matter related to a return brought down in this House on the 11th of this month, marked Sessional Papers No. 131. The return is obviously incorrect and misleading and there are omitted from it certain papers which should have been brought down and which have an important bearing on the matter to which I am referring.
On the 15th of March last, when the Estimates of the Department of Agricul-. ture were before the House, I referred to the case of the destruction of a large herd of hogs by a Government inspector. The owner of these animals has been unable to get any compensation for the loss sustained under the Act providing for such cases. Just about one column of Hansard was taken up with my remarks on that occasion. On the 17th of the same month the minister brought the matter up again when his Estimates were before the House and referred to it at considerable length, and it was the subject of a good deal of discussion on that occasion. From the remarks made by the minister I felt that the only recourse I had was to place a notice of motion on the Order Paper asking that all the papers in connection with the matter be brought down and laid on the table of the House. This I did, and in response to that motion, moved on the 8th of this month, the return referred to was tabled. As I said at the outset, it is quite obvious that the return is not complete and that it contains matter quite uncalled for in a return of this nature. I refer to a memorandum attached to it, unsigned and undated, which

endeavours to give a synopsis of the whole case, but which is biased and incorrect, as I can easily demonstrate by some reports of inspectors given in the return. It is with a good deal of reluctance that I feel it necessary to bring this matter before the House and to take up the time of Parliament in this way.
It will be one year to-morrow since the inspectors arrived on the premises of this man, Mr. George B. Alderson, and destroyed his herd of 245 hogs. He has from that time to the present been endeavouring to secure some consideration, but without avail, and in view of the statement made by the minister on March 17 last, which indicated that he had evidently closed the case, I feel that there is no other recourse than to bring the matter before Parliament because aparently no other means are open to Mr. Alderson to have his grievance ventilated and the documents relating to the case produced.
The return, as I have stated, is obviously incorrect and misleading, as may be seen from the memorandum attached to it. Page 49 of the return contains what purports to be an application for license signed by Mr. Alderson. I have a copy of the application which was signed by Mr. Alderson and it is quite different from the one which is found in the return. The application brought down in the return contains this provision:
1. To boil thoroughly all garbage before feeding it to swine, and to prevent my swine from having access to uncooked garbage.
This was not contained in the application made and signed by the applicant for the license. The application which he signed also contained a provision which is not to be found in that brought down in the return. That this was apparent to the Veterinary Director General is quite evident from the report he submitted to the minister under date of March the 19th in answer to a personal request I made of the minister some time before, in which he gives an outline of the correct application. Now, this has a very important bearing on the whole matter, because at the outset the inspector endeavoured to make it appear that Mr. Alderson was aware of the fact that his animals were diseased and that they had been dying from disease. He claimed that he was not aware of it; that he had not lost any as a result of disease; that all the animals were taking their feed regularly and that he was unaware of any disease until the inspector came around and

condemned them. Now, this is referred to in the memorandum which is attached, and which says:
If disease was so evident to the eye of an untrained observer like the garbage inspector, why should the owner not notice it? The probability is that he knew the hogs were sick but neglected to notify our office.
The inspector in his report-page 31 of the return-states that when he made the examination of the herd, Dr. Tennant, another inspector, accompanied him on his inspection of the premises. So that the garbage inspector was not really alone; he was accompanied by a veterinary inspector of the department. After considerable correspondence and after having been notified by the Veterinary Director General that no compensation could be paid to him unless he could show that the disease had been introduced into his herd from some outside source, it would be assumed that the disease had occurred through the feeding of garbage, and he would not be entitled to any compensation. Mr. Alderson, claimed that he was unaware of the existence of any disease in his herd. After receiving this notice from the inspector, and when it was made quite evident that unless he could show that disease had been introduced from some outside source he would receive no compensation, he in a letter dated September 21, which is included in the report, stated that he was enclosing a list of names of those who had hogs on his premises about the time that the trouble occurred. This list is not included in the return. Mr Alderson claims that the person referred to, R. H. Parker, had lost all the animals . which he had on Mr. Alderson's premises shortly before the trouble arose. Upon receipt of this letter the Veterinary Director General notified the office of the Veterinary Department in Toronto-page 24 of return -4n charge of Mr. Moynihan, and referred to the statement contained in Mr. Aider-son's letter; but he refrained from notifying Mr. Moynihan of the case Mr. Aider-son had referred to-that of Mr. R. H. Parker. He gave him the names of those who, Mr. Alderson admitted, had hogs on his premises and who had not lost any hogs, but he refrained from giving to inspector Moynihan of Toronto, when he asked that a further inquiry be made into, the matter, the one case-that of Mr. R.
H.	Parker-in which Mr. Alderson pointed out that he had lost all the hogs that had been on his premises. Mr. Moynihan evidently instructed Mr. Richards, who had made the inspection of the premises in the
first instance, to make a further examination and Mr. Richards' report is contained in this return-pages 40 and 41. In that report he says:
Mr. Alderson Sr. was absent but his son, who was in charge of the hogs at time of outbreak, was interviewed this date and he advises me that the only hogs that he had any knowledge of being on his premises at any recent date prior to outbreak were from the premises of R.
H. Parker. See separate report under his name.
The House will observe that the Veterinary Director General withheld the name of Mr. Parker in asking to have an investigation made. Incidentally, Mr. Richards, who was making the investigation, found from the information which he obtained from Mr. Alderson's son, that, in the case of Mr. Parker, hogs had died, and he evidently made a separate report which he refers to in his report to the head of the branch. This had also been withheld, and it is not contained in this return.
Further on in the correspondence the Veterinary Director General, after having taken the stand that it would be necessary to establish by reasonable proof that the hogs might have acquired the disease by contact or otherwise, in order to obtain compensation, departs from that stand and claims that the man should have notified the department as soon as sickness broke out amongst his animals. It was quite apparent that the man could not notify the inspector if he was not aware that his animals were sick. Let us see what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) had to say on the matter when I brought it up on a former occasion in the House. He informed the House that he himself had been one of those veterinary inspectors. He s.tated:
Hog cholera is not a disease which shows itself very clearly in all cases. Where the disease is very acute the animal dies within a few hours and the symptoms are clearly defined; but . should the animal be suffering from chronic cholera there would be no external symptoms and to the eye of the layman the hog would be apparently healthy. So far as our Health of Animals branch is concerned, I want to say that It is the most efficient, not merely on this con-titnent, but in the whole world.
The House will observe that the minister himself said that the disease might be present in a herd and an ordinary layman not be aware of the fact. On the next occasion when the matter came before the House, the minister was very emphatic, and he called attention to a statement which I had made on March 15. He said:,
Then, again, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) criticised the Health

of Animals Branch on account of their action in connection with an outbreak of hog- cholera on the farm of one Alderson. He stated that Alderson said that his hogs were not infected with hog cholera and were free from disease. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman was not fully informed or he would not have made the statement. In the first place, the ordinary garbage inspector who was sent down to inspect these hogs-this being a garbage feeding plant [DOT]-had no difficulty whatever i.n diagnosing the disease among those hogs as hog cholera. He immediately advised the Health of Animals Branch inspectors; a careful inspection was made, and they had no difficulty in confirming the lay inspector's diagnosis.
I have pointed out that the lay inspector's report shows that he was accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, one of the inspectors of the department, on the occasion when he visited the premises. Evidently the case is closed and no compensation is forthcoming, because on that occasion the minister stated:
These men are experts in their particular line., I worked fourteen years in this profession. I was chief inspector for British Columbia for that length of time, handled hundreds of cases of hog cholera and am fairly familiar with the details. Hence, I consider myself fairly efficient to form a judgment in such matters, as compared with the average hog owner	It is
a very interesting story that the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) has told to-night-very interesting indeed. I have heard it time and time again west of the Rocky Mountains.
A little further on, referring to Dr. Hall, he said:
Dr. Hall, a man who has been in the service for twelve or thirteen years, and whose word I would take any day of the week before I would take that of a man who Was not qualified and had not received the proper training of an inspector. How are we going to carry out the requirements of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act in this country if we cannot rely on our inspectors?
A little further on he said:
How are we ever going to keep disease out of the country, and maintain the enviable position we now enjoy in regard to contagious disease, if we are going to turn down the statement of our experts and accept the word of the hog owner? The mere fact that only thirty-three out of two hundred and thirty-five hogs were found free from disease, is an indication that there certainly was hog cholera in that herd.
A little further on:
Yet we know that our inspectors are reliable men who have been in the service for a long time, there is no reason to think they did not tell the truth, and until the opposite can be proved we are bound to accept their word. The owners of those hogs broke the rule not only in failing to cook the garbage thoroughly, but also in not reporting that the disease existed on their premises, and therefore they forfeited their right to compensation.
The minister evidently had been informed of this matter only a very short 
time previously by the officers of his department; in fact, I know that he had no personal knowledge of the fact until I called his attention to it just a short time before the matter came up in the House. He has evidently placed too great confidence in the officers in his department, because when he states that none of the other animals that were slaughtered were fit for food, he is making a statement that. I think he will find it very difficult to prove if these men are given an opportunity to have their case properly tried and investigated.
Inspector Richards' report shows that the 33 hogs that were segregated and which Mr. Alderson had permission to slaughter were suspected of being infected with the disease as well as the others. See report by Richards, pages 34 and 35. Mr. Aledrson picked them out of the different pens, and he makes a declaration that the temperature of eight of those that were slaughtered had been taken by the inspector when he was on the premises and declared to have a high temperature. You will find from the report of Inspector Richards that he makes the statement that he suspected the animals were diseased, and when the officers of his department tried to make it appear that these animals were apparently free from disease and that the others were so badly diseased that they were not fit for food, they are making a statement that they will find it hard to substantiate. On the first occasion when I brought this matter before the House, in the few remarks that I made, I pointed out that all that this man was asking was to have a fair and proper investigation made into the matter by a commission or otherwise, and that he was prepared to accept the verdict, but he does not feel inclined to submit to being ruined without a protest. For a man over* seventy years of age, who had put every dollar he had in this business, who had invested nearly $10,000 in the pens where he was breeding the hogs and who estimated that between seven and eight thousand dollars' worth of animals were destroyed on that occasion, to be dealt with in this arbitrary way is, it will be readily admitted, a great hardship. The 33 animals which were slaughtered and dressed and disposed of by Mr. Alderson as fit for food were all passed by the inspector. They were killed on the premises and hung up there. The intestines were left lying beside each animal, the inspector examined every one carefully, and failed to find any evidence of disease in any one of the animals that had been slaughtered.

A great ado is being made about Mr. Al-derson's son having admitted that they had lost a number of animals, and that consequently they must have been aware of the disease. Mr. Alderson's son, Mr. Alder-son himself, and his foreman all declare most emphatically that they had not lost a hog from disease or in any other way, but that a number of small pigs had died during the winter, not from disease, but from accident and other causes.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House in connection with this matter, but what I do desire is that the return to the Order of the House shall be a correct one, because it will be necessary, if there is no other recourse open to Mr. Alderson, to ask for a fiat to enable him to sue and endeavour to establish his case in the courts. That may be necessary and it will be preferable to having his case disposed of in the arbitrary and autocratic manner in which it evidently has been handled. I do not think that the framers of the Act under which compensation is allowed for animals that are destroyed ever contemplated such high-handed action as was taken by the inspectors in this case. It is a very easy matter for these men who are supposed to be experts to take a stand on a question, and apparently there is no recourse but to accept their decision. They get away with many things in this way and they do it in a manner that would not be allowed if the case were tried in court.
I have touched upon some of the features of this case. I have pointed out some of the inaccuracies, omissions, and misrepresentations contained in this return. When this House passes an order for a return to be placed on the Table, we naturally expect that the return will be a correct one, and that the whole correspondence in connection with the matter will be placed before Parliament. I might read the motion for the papers, which was made on April 8:
A copy of all reports, orders, telegrams, certificates of valuation, or any other correspondence relating to or connected with the slaughter of 245 hogs the property of one George B. Alderson, hy officers of the Department of Agriculture on or about the 20th day of April, 1920, and for which compensation has been refused by the minister.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of the motion were broad, and that there can be no excuse whatever for withholding any of the information in connection with this matter that is in the department. I believe that my request is a reasonable one. It may be necessary for
me to bring this question up again unless something is done. In the meantime, I want to see that all the evidence that is in the Department of Agriculture in connection with the subject is laid on the Table, so that this man will know exactly what has been done. I might say that the man who made a post mortem examination of one small pig has apparently not made a report on his examination at all. - It is referred to by the garbage inspector, and by another, but as far as Dr. Hall is concerned there is not one word in the return to indicate that he ever found disease in the animal upon which he held the post mortem.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, when so worthy a representative as the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) makes such a serious statement as he has done to the House this evening, one expects some reply from the Prime Minister, or from some one representing the Department of Agriculture, against which department this most serious charge is made. I say most serious, Mr. Speaker, because any tampering with the records of this House, or any refusal on the part of any official of the Government to comply with an order of the House of Commons, must always be regarded as most serious.
The hon. member for South Oxford points out that on a, certain day an order passed this House calling upon the Department of Agriculture to bring down all the records in connection with this hog cholera case. I do not think my hon. friend has done full justice to himself in that he has not pointed out where these mistakes, misrepresentations, and inaccuracies are in the return, but as a private member of the House I must accept his word that there are misrepresentations, mistakes, and inaccuracies in the return that has been brought down to Parliament. I am not going to elaborate that point, Mr. Speaker, beyond saying that it is a great pity that the confidence of the House should be shaken to the extent that the language of the hon. member must have shaken it with reference to returns of this character. We have a right to expect that every single item of evidence in the possession of the department in connection with this matter will be brought down in response to an order of this kind. If there is anything of a confidential nature that should not be brought down, the minister, when he is laying the return on the Table should

say: I have brought down everything that I can bring down but there are some things of a confidential nature which cannot be brought down. Sometimes the minister will tell, an hon. member who has moved for papers that he can have access to confidential documents privately. This matter should not be allowed to pass unnoticed, for the reasons I have already given. There are a great many lawyers m this House and the practice of their profession has taught them the sacredness with which all records of a court are regarded. If a prothonotary or a clerk of the court was suspected of tampering with the records, taking out a man s defence and putting in a different one, or taking out a man's writ and statement of claim and substituting another or destroying them altogether, how long would the barristers and the judges of this country put up with tampering of that kind? The ordinary court is but a small affair compared with the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the supreme court of them all, and the records of the departments are the records of this court. They are to be correctly filed, and they should be accurate in every particular, so far as any human institution can be accurate; and when the House of Commons, with all its force and solemnity, passes an order calling on any of the departments to bring down reports, it should not be regarded as a trivial matter if those reports prove to be, as the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) states, inaccurate and misleading, something being omitted altogether from the information submitted. While personally I have no interest in the world in this matter, I do say that for the peace, order and good government of the House of Commons it is of the highest importance that we should all have confidence in the departments and in their officials.
I therefore submit to the Prime Minister that a proper investigation should be instituted into this matter and that, when he is fully seized of the facts in connection with it, he should inform the House as to the true situation and endeavour to have remedied any difficulty that may exist.
As to the question of a fiat, we in this House have nothing to do with that; it has no business being raised here. The Department of the Secretary of State, I believe, deals with the questions of fiats. The matter first goes before that Department and thence it is taken to the Department of Justice. I think that is the condition now; at all events, the question is !IMr. McKenzie.]
one of detail, not for this House. If a man presents a petition showing a good case he generally gets the fiat, but the House of Commons has nothing whatever to do with that question. It is only a matter of $2 to obtain the fiat. My hon. friend is not a lawyer and therefore is not familiar with the steps one should take to get a fiat. However, without charging him anything, I now inform him of the proper course to pursue, and if his friend has a good case he will know what to do. As to the other matter, it is one entirely of public concern, and I do, with all sincerity, submit to the Prime Minister that a case of this kind should not pass unnoticed. I have been in this House a good number of years and I cannot recall any instance of this kind before, where an Order of the House calling for papers has been met with the charge, made by the mover of the motion, that the papers brought down are not in accordance with the Order, but are erroneous, deceptive and misleading. If such is the case, it certainly Should be inquired into.


Arthur Meighen: The minister of the department concerned is not in his place to-night, and I have no doubt the reason is that he did not know that this subject was to be brought up. As I understand the complaint, it is that some papers brought down in answer to a motion are not in some respects_ correct; and, as well, that the papers include a memorandum, evidently prepared by the department, summarizing the case from the departmental standpoint. As to the latter, that would, I would presume, be the right of the department if they so chose. There could be no objection on the part of any one to the department doing more than the order of the House called for. There could, of course, be objection if the return filed were not in accordance with the order of the House; and as to that, I will request that the speech of the hon. member be read and compared with the return in order to ascertain whether or not the return is in any respect in error or is not fully in accordance with the order of the House. As to fiat, that of course is a subject for application to the Secretary of State, who in turn submits it to the Department of Justice. The rules of the department as to the granting of fiats are very well known; they are not reviewed by the Governor General in Council.

Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Militia and Defence-salaries, $643,751.


The CHAIRMAN:: This item was under consideration for an hour last evening, when it was reduced, by amendment, from the sum of $643,751 to the sum of $586,512. Shall the item as amended carry?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Last evening, at the beginning of the discussion, I called the attention of the minister to the status of certain members of the Permanent Force of Canada whose salaries had been deducted in order that the deductions might be applied to the pension fund, and who, on demobilization, were refused a refund of the sums deducted. I now have before me the facts of one particular case, and I should like an explanation from the minister regarding this matter.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I do not know that'I can add anything to the explanation I gave last night. The members of the Permanent Force, of commissioned and noncommissioned rank, contribute a certain percentage of their pay to the pension fund. If they fulfil their term of service, they are entitled to pension; if they do not serve their term, they receive, in lieu of pension, one month's gratuity for each year of service. This applies only to warrant officers and officers of the Permanent Force. The ranks of the Permanent Force beneath warrant officers do not contribute to the pension fund. If money has been paid into the pension fund it has gone to the Receiver General, and, so far as I am aware, there is no way of getting it back under the present statute, which provides that the money shall go to the credit of the fund. I do not know what further explanation my hon. friend desires. If he will be more explicit, I shall try to give him any further information I can.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is admitted by the Department of Militia that certain deductions were made from the salaries of officers and non-commissioned officers during the war. As the minister is well aware, all members of the Permanent Force became members of the Canadian Expeditionary F'wce also at a certain period of the war; that we have members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force from whose salaries a certain percentage was deducted by the Government. When we ask to obtain a refund of this money the minister tells me that unfortunately it has been paid to such and such
a department of Government and that we cannot obtain a refund. Without understanding particularly the technical phases of the situation it seems to me that the broad question is this: If the man had some money deducted from his pay and allowances he should get it back. If there is no other way of giving it to him give him a sufficient gratuity; take advantage of the Audit Act, or whatever statute governs a case like this. Surely the Government can find means to pay the money which it owes, since it pays thousands of dollars which it does not owe. I would like the minister to give a more satisfactory explanation than to tell the House: "Yes, we owe the money but we cannot pay it." If the minister cannot give me that satisfactory explanation I would like him to tell me how many men have cases of this kind, if he knows. Then we will take such proceedings as the situation seems to call for.


Hugh Guthrie: I may say in the first place that the Government does not owe the money in any sense of the word. I think my hon. friend knows that the Permanent Force at the time of the war was merged in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Those of the Permanent Force in Canada who were of the rank of warrant officer or commissioned officer are entitled under our law to pensions at the end of their period of service-formerly twenty years, now ten years. A certain amount was annually deducted from the pay of the Permanent Force and up to the time of the war that pension fund cost the treasury of Canada nothing-it was self sustaining. The Permanent Force was then merged in the1 Canadian Expeditionary Force, and the pay in the Canadian Expeditionary Force was higher than the old Permanent Force pay. The men of the Permanent Force were still charged the five per cent on the Permanent Force pay, not on the Canadian Expeditionary Force pay. That was deducted and put to the credit of the pension fund. Now it so happened that the pay of all the officers of the Permanent Force throughout the country was charged to the Permanent Force vote; only their excess pay was charged to the Canadian Expeditionary Force vote. Had these men continued in the Permanent Force they would have enjpyed their pensions, but they did not remain.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: You demobilized them?


Hugh Guthrie: Not without consulting them. There are only between sixty

and seventy all told, and if a man was demobilized-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: You could not pay him.


Hugh Guthrie: We did pay him one month's gratuity for each month's service. Now that is the law and you cannot get away from it. If Parliament changes the statute I suppose there might be a remedy, but that is the law under which these men enlisted and joined the Permanent Force and it must be presumed they knew the law. I cannot see that there is any debt owing to these men, or any liability on the part of the Government towards them. If the House saw fit to change the statute, I suppose they could be repaid, but that money is trust money to support that pension fund.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I agree with the minister that perhaps this man obtained his gratuity, but as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, which he became by Order in Council, he obtained a gratuity anyway.


Hugh Guthrie: He got his war service gratuity as well. I did not mention that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He got his war service gratuity as well?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did the gratuity which he obtained amount to as much as he had paid into the pension fund?


Hugh Guthrie: No, not quite. He paid five per cent per annum on his salary and he got back one month's allowance for each month he had served by way of gratuity, and in addition got six months" war gratuity.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Which he was entitled to as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not mention that because he got it as his right.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point is this: He paid a certain amount of money to the Government of Canada for certain service but the Government, owing to no fault of his own, did not give him a pension. He is demobilized now and it seems to me that in all justice and reason he and the others should get their money back. I cannot for the life of me understand the explanation given bjr the minister in which he says, "We cannot give this money back to him." Surely, if the money is owed, there is some means whereby the Government can give it
TMr. Guthrie.]
back. The minister does not deny that the money is due.


Hugh Guthrie: I do deny it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Well, the minister does
not deny the man paid in a certain amount of money.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister admits that the man paid to the Government a certain amount of money for a certain service, namely a pension. The minister also admits that the man did not get this service. Surely by all the rules of justice he is entitled to get his money back. He has paid that money in but he does not get it back. I cannot understand why some means is not taken to give it to him.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I
can make the matter any more plain. I have tried to demonstrate as clearly as I could that a man who joins the permanent force is presumed to know the law. There is the provision in the statute and as soon as he joins-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This man joined during
the war.


Hugh Guthrie: Before the war, or
during the war, or since the war, it does not matter. The statute has not be6n changed. There is the law, the man knows when he joins that a certain amount of his pay is deducted annually for the purposes of his pension, and while he is in the force he receives the protection which the pension fund gives him. Now every man who joins the permanent force knows that he is liable to be discharged-that is a rule in the army. The men are supposed to know that. As a matter of fact we did not discharge them, but at the end of the recent war if certain men were let out it was because we had such a splendid lot of excellent men. Many of them had risen from the ranks to high command but it was impossible to retain the services of them all. Unfortunately we had to let some of them go, but to any that were let go we paid a gratuity for each month's service and in addition six months' war gratuity. I cannot see any more that can be done. If the House choses to change the laws and orders the money to be paid I suppose it will be paid, but in the meantime the Auditor General will not pay the money on the order of anybody that I know of.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My suggestion is that if
the minister recognizes the justice of the

claim he ought to use his influence with his colleagues.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not recognize that there is any just claim that has not been paid. I do not recognize that there is any grievance at all.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In that case the minister's sense of justice and mine are different. I had expected rather more of him. However, this man states definitely, and is under the impression, that the Militia Department owes him some money. He says here:
It matters not to me whether this money has been placed in the Consolidated Revenue fund of Canada or anywhere else. But what does matter is this: is it to be refunded?
That to me is as plain a statement as any one can make. He says he has paid money and he wants it back. The minister says he does not recognize the justice of this claim. In that event there is nothing more for us to do; there is no resolution or motion which I can make in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: What was the rank of
the man?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He is a captain, but it
does not make very much difference what he was.


Hugh Guthrie: What was he at the outbreak of the war?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have not the man's
record; I cannot tell the minister what he was. Whether he was a boot-black or anything of that kind does not matter to me. The point is that he served in the army and gave his money to the Government but did not get it back. That is the only question in which I am interested. Of course, if the minister refuses to enter into any further discussion of the matter, I can only leave it as it is.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not at all refuse
to enter into a discussion. But the point that my hon. friend is making is that there is a debt of obligation and if he could make the matter any more clear to me I would be only too glad to listen, and reconsider it. My hon. friend must not say that the minister persists in refusing to recognize a just claim when I am satisfied there is no valid claim.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is there not a debt of
honour.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps you could call it that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just before the committee adjourned last night I asked the
Minister of Militia a question with regard to dispensing with the services of a man named Douglas and the minister made a rather peculiar reply. This is what he said:
There was in that branch a man named Douglas, whose services were dispensed with for certain reasons which I will give to my hon. friend after adjournment if that will suit him.
Well, the House adjourned so quickly that I did not have a chance to say whether it suited me or not. I want to say now that it does not suit me. Charges have been made that funds were misappropriated, that certain persons' services were dispensed with, and that the matter had been hushed up. I think the minister's reply last night is very good evidence of that. He is ready to give a member the information privately, but he refuses to give that information on the floor of the House, where members should receive it. Does the minister wish to shield somebody higher up, or just what is the reason that he refused to give this information to the House last night?


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend's insinuation is rather strange, because I explained to him everything about the Douglas case. Douglas was one of those guilty of irregularities in the pay office. He left the country hastily. Several charges were preferred against him of having forged the names of soldiers to the endorsements upon their war service gratuity cheques. It was said that he was in Texas at one time, and in New York at another time. Unfortunately, the man has a family and a father in town, and it was for that reason that I did not wish to mention the matter last night, but I gave full particulars to my hon. friend this afternoon.	,


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will those claims
have to be paid over again by the Militia Department?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the department is not a loser; the liability, is against the bank for having paid the forged cheques. As a matter of fact, some of the relatives of the defaulter undertook to dispose of what little household furniture he had and brought the proceeds to the department. That money was paid over to the Receiver-General, and the whole matter is in the hands of the Justice Department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not quite understand the hon. minister. In one breath he

says that the department was not a loser, and that the bank was liable; in the next breath he says that the proceeds of the furniture were paid to the department and by the department paid over to the Receiver-General on account of this man's defalcations. If the bank was out of pocket, why was the money refunded to the department?


Hugh Guthrie: The money was handed to the Militia Department, and the Militia Department handed it over to the Receiver-General. The whole matter is now in the hands of the Justice Department. I believe creditors are claiming the money, and that the bank is also claiming it, but the Militia Department is not making any claim to it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Under this item is the minister prepared to discuss the question of militia pensions?


Hugh Guthrie: Probably this is just as good an item as any to discuss that question.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Is there any special item for military hospitals?
_ Mr. POWER: I wish to refer to the pensions being received by men who were wounded in the South African war or while on active service in Canada. I am not referring now to the long service pensions. I have a case before me of a man who was discharged from the army as absolutely medically unfit owing to disability incurred on service during the South African war. He is totally deaf. He draws a total pension of $6 per month. I do not wish _ to increase the expenditure of the Militia Department, but does not the minister feel that something can be done for these men-and there are a considerable number of them-who are suffering from war disabilities? I think they might well be transferred to the Board of Pension Commissioners to be dealt with as C.E.F.
cases. After all, this man whose 9 p.m. case I have cited suffered equally _ in the service of his country as a man disabled in the recent war and he should have the same claim to a pension. The officers in the old Permanent Force have been very well looked after indeed; in fact, the Permanent Force, as far as I know, was principally for the officers. But the N.C.O.'s and men have not fared so well, and I would urge on the minister the importance of obtaining an increase for those who have really suffered from the 
disabilities incurred during war service. I feel certain the minister could find some means of doing this if he would only take the matter up with the proper authorities.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the matter should receive the sympathetic consideration of the House. There is a tremendous discrepancy between the South African pensions and the pensions awarded in respect of the late war. Conditions twenty odd years ago were very different from what they are to-day, and I have no doubt that when the South African pensions were awarded they were considered fair and equitable. However, this matter will require further consideration, and I am glad to say that it is now, I believe, before a special committee of this House known as the Soldiers' Re-establishment Committee which is dealing with all such cases. This question, I believe, will be considered1 and a report presented to the House by that committee.


Mr. McCOIG:: I am very glad to hear the minister state that some consideration is goipg to be given to our men who fought in the defence of their country many years ago. We still have a few veterans of the Fenian raid and the Crimean war who are to-day really in need of assistance, and it seems to me that their cases are deserving of sympathetic consideration. These men who in the past served their country so faithfully should to-day in their old age be relieved from want, and I hope the minister will see if some assistance cannot be given to men whp deserve so well of their country.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With reference to the item under consideration, is the amount required for the Record Office to be found on page 76 or page 77?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that it is in separate form anywhere in the Estimates.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would like to know
what the Record Office cost.


Samuel William Jacobs: While that information is being looked up, might I for my own information ask what is the strength of the permanent force?


Hugh Guthrie: Non-commissioned
ranks, 3,865; commissioned ranks, 447.


Samuel William Jacobs: But was the department
not empowered by statute the year before last to increase the standing army, if I may so call it, to 10,000?


Hugh Guthrie: Power was given by
the statute to increase it should it become necessary to do so, but it was determined soon after the Act was passed not to increase it beyond 5,000. Subsequently it was decided not to go beyond 4,000. We have not yet reached the 4,000 limit. I do not know that there is any immediate need of going further, but if the need should arise the power is there in the statute.


Samuel William Jacobs: The argument made by
the Opposition two years ago when the Bill was before the House was evidently a good one. What happened at that particular time to cause the department to ask for an increase from 5,000 to 10,000?


Hugh Guthrie: We were either in war
or very recently out of war and our ideas were, perhaps, a bit enlarged and inflamed by reason of the fact that we had raised nearly half a million men for the Great War and 10,000 looked like a very insignificant number. I am glad that we have not found it necessary to go beyond the
4.000.


Samuel William Jacobs: The department found
that we had defeated our enemy with half a million men, and though there was really no danger at that particular time, it was deemed necessary, owing to the inflamed condition of our imagination, to increase the strength of the force from 5,000 to
10.000.


Hugh Guthrie: Of course, the Permanent Force is essentially a training force. It is a first-class fighting force, too, but its first purpose is to train the Canadian militia.


Samuel William Jacobs: This training force of
3,500 was able to train half a million men to send across the sea during the war; therefore I conclude that 10,000 would be able to train something like a million and a half.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no doubt that
for twenty or thirty years the permanent force had done a tremendous amount of valuable training of the militia unit^ of Canada, and when the war broke out the effect of that training was immediately seen. But the Permanent Force did not train the half million men that went to the front.


Mr. DEMERS:: What was the strength
of the Permanent Force before the war?


Hugh Guthrie: 2,970, the last year,
I think, before the war.


Mr. GOULD:: I understood that Military District No. 12 was formed to meet the war needs and that it was to be dispensed with. Is it still in existence?


Hugh Guthrie: There was at one time a suggestion that the military district in Saskatchewan with headquarters at Regina might be dispensed with and the command taken over either at Winnipeg or at Calgary. But it turned out subsequently that Saskatchewan was one of the finest recruiting areas for the militia in Canada, and as the amount involved was not very substantial it was thought that it would be well to maintain the district headquarters at Regina. Saskatchewan has a very large body of militiamen who require training.


Oliver Robert Gould: Why is it, then, that we
have no rifle range or military barracks or anything else of the kind in that district?


Hugh Guthrie: The reason is that we
have not the money to build them. I would like very much to be able to announce that' we are going ahead with the construction of necessary barracks for the permanent force, drill halls for the militia, and rifle ranges for our infantry regiments. But in preparing the Militia Estimates this year we cut down as closely as possible and we have very little for rifle ranges and nothing for drill halls or barracks.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have compiled some
figures from the Auditor General's Report of last year, and if the same condition obtains in all the military districts of Canada as obtains in Military District No. 12, perhaps a means may be found whereby the minister may procure the necessary moneys to build all the rifle ranges and barracks required in these districts. The totals which I have arrived at are somewhat different from those given in the Auditor General's Report. I find that the amount required for Military Distrct No. 12 was $105,704.52, divided as follows:	officers' salaries,
$41,769.50; non-commissioned officers and men, salaries, provisions, etc., $63,305.02. Now, I thought that $41,000 odd was a very large amount to spend in the administration of a business the work of which that $63,000 would pay for. Further, I took the liberty of adding to the item of officers' salaries one-thirteenth of the pay of the headquarters' staff here, counting it all as administration expenses. When I did that, the total amount required to carry on work which $63,305.02 would pay for, was found to be $72,987.75. Now, if a condition similar to that obtains in each military dis-

triet, the taxpayers are being called upon to pay something that they should not have to pay. It would seem that a reorganization or readjustment might give the minister enough money to enable him to build the necessary rifle ranges and barracks so that he would not have to pay exorbitant rates for the rental of buildings to house the men. The active militia in Saskatchewan is not very great at this time; in fact, the bulk of the information which I receive from Military District No. 12 indicates that there is one officer for every two men out there. Some of these officers receive large remuneration, having the benefit of a private car, chauffeur and so on. It is unfair to the people, having regard to the conditions of taxation at present prevailing, that exorbitant salaries should be paid to large numbers of officers. I would refer the minister to the remarks of my respected leader during the debate on the Address, to the effect that we should have retrenchment. I think that there is opportunity irt these Estimates for the exercise of retrenchment. If the minister accepted the advice tendered by my leader on that occasion he would pare these Estimates right down to the bone. The reduction of approximately $50,000 made last night before adjournment did not satisfy me; if the matter was looked into carefully it would be found that the militia of Canada would not suffer materially if the proposed appropriations were cut well-nigh in half. I would support any resolution presented by an hon. member for a decrease of the expenditure to that extent. It is a well known fact in this House that I am not a militarist; yet I wish to place myself on record because I have received so many advices and communications from my people asking me to take this stand. I take it in all sincerity and on my own initiative, but I know that I am representing the people of Saskatchewan, a province, which, I am pleased to say, received such a high recommendation from the minister to-night.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has the minister his reply to my question ready?


Hugh Guthrie: The amount of this Estimate that pertains to the Record Office is $85,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is that the total cost of the Record Office?


Hugh Guthrie: There is the rent of buildings and the temporary clerks whom we are letting go from week to week. In 
this particular item, $85,000 represents the Record Office.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Where do we find the cost of the temporary clerks?


Hugh Guthrie: They are still charged to Demobilization Vote. We have in the whole department 802 temporary clerks.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How many in connection with the Record Office?


Hugh Guthrie: 462.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How many will be required in the Record Office to carry on the work for years, as the minister says?


Hugh Guthrie: Seventy-four who have been classified as permanent and about 400 temporary, I think, probably for two years. Yon cannot make more than an estimate of that. I think, as I stated last night, the number will go down yearly, from fifty to sixty or possibly seventy-five of the present list being released this year. But after two or three years the number will be reduced rapidly because our records will be more or less complete.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it not a fact that the minister last year established a military body, a branch of the military service, to have charge of the records, or in any case that an establishment was given to the Records Branch?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not remember having ever mentioned the matter. Perhaps my predecessor did, but I am informed that if it was discussed-and it probably was- it was never carried out.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are these 74 permanent employees military men?


Hugh Guthrie: A good many of them are returned soldiers; but they are on the civilian staff; they are not on the military staff of the department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it not a fact that there is some kind of a military establishment, calling for a colonel, so many majors, so many subalterns and so many non-commissioned officers in connection with the Record Office?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that that was discussed at one time, but it was never carried out. Col. Armstrong, who is a member of the Permanent Force, is at the head of it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: His pay is charged to the Permanent Force appropriation?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are there any other members of the Permanent Force in that branch?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed that there is none.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the total cost of the Record Office including members of the Permanent Force, temporary clerks and so on, at the present moment?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not the figures exactly, but I will endeavour to give an estimate in a moment or two.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I do not know whether the hon. member appreciates the importance of the Record Office. At one time an establishment of military staff clerks was considered. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the Record Office is one of the most essential, economical and efficient organizations in the Government service to-day. There are in that Record Office, I think I am safe in saying, some
700,000	files giving a complete record of every officer, non-commissioned officer and man who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, of the Government pensions, Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Soldiers' Land Settlement, the various medals and rewards arising from time to time and the voluminous files that went with each man, as my hon. friend knows", from his enlistment station to the front in France. After the armistice those files gradually came back from France to the Record Office in England, from England to Canada, and they have been filed here in such a way as to form one of the most complete records in the Government service. It is most essential that the Record Office should be kept up to a high state of efficiency.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I agree with the view expressed by the former Minister of Militia and Defence that the Record Office has given us good service, and that it is absolutely essential to have a record office. This is certainly not one of the things instituted by the former Minister of Militia when his mind was inflamed by the war spirit, as his successor has just told us. The Record Office was absolutely necessary; we must have some place to which to apply for all the documents in connection with the soldiers who served overseas. There is a distinction between criticising the work of this office and finding out what it is costing us. If we need more for it, and it is shown that it is absolutely necessary to have more,
I would be the first to urge the Government to have some more money voted.


Hugh Guthrie: An approximate estimate of the cost would be $600,000 for salaries and wages, and in addition to that there is rent, light, fuel, stationery.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Of which only $85,000 is charged against the Militia Department?


Hugh Guthrie: $85,000 would be for permanent employees; the rest is paid out of the Demobilization Vote.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What does the Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch cost, and where is that to be found in the Estimates?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch there are fifty permanent employees and thirty temporary.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What do they cost in this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Their salaries will
average about $1,200, so that would make $96,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: On this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: No, fifty of them are on this vote; thirty of them are temporary and are paid out of Demobilization Vote.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: About $60,000 paid out of this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Where will the remainder come from?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Central Registry there are 43 permanent and 109 temporary. The average salary is the same-$1,200 each.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That would make about $50,000 for the Central Registry. Who is in charge of the Separation Allowance Branch? Is he a military man or a civilian?


Hugh Guthrie: A civilian, Mr. Cox, who has been there for a long time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Do any of those employed in the Separation Allowance Branch belong to the Permanent Force?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think there is a single individual.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does the same thing apply to the Central Registry?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The total increase on
account of new branches over last year would be something like $85,000, the cost of the Record Office, $96,000; the cost of the Separation Allowance and Asigned Pay Branch, and about $50,000, the cost of the Central Registry.


Hugh Guthrie: Approximately, that
would be about right.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: So that the increase
should be roughly something like $225,000 owing to those three branches?


Hugh Guthrie: Those three branches would account for that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The increase would appear to be well over $400,000, or rather $350,000, after the deduction is made for the $50,000 which the minister struck off last night. Is there any other explanation to be given?


Hugh Guthrie: There are 93 permanents in other branches than the three my hon. friend has enumerated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 93 new permanents?


Hugh Guthrie: The total number is 259 in addition to the pre-war number. Today the total is 399.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What are these other new permanents needed for?


Hugh Guthrie: To perform the necessary work of the department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What are they doing?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must know that the work in every branch of the department has multiplied many times over what it was in pre-war days.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: As a direct result of the war. You have to continue to do the work.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The war is over now, and we are looking after the effects of the war by means of the Central Registry and by means of our Record Office, which costs us $600,000. That is an important branch, and as I have already told the minister, we will give him all he needs for that branch. The Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch has also to be kept on. I do not know just what it costs, but there is $96,000 in this vote, and Lord only knows what there is in the demobilization or war appropriation vote. The minister says there are 93 new permanents. I would like to know what they are doing.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: Does my hon. friend think it is simply a case of "right turn, dismiss?"


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It^ should be, but evidently it is not. We have these three branches I have mentioned to look after the stragglers, but I want to know what these 93 new permanents are doing?


Hugh Guthrie: I can give my hon. friend the exact increases: Deputy Minister's office 1, Adjutant General 10, Central Registry 43, Printing, Stationery and Contingencies 7, Chief Accountant's office, which I did not mention before, 43, Director of Contract's Branch 20, Pay Service Branch 3, Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay 48, Chief of the General Staff, 1 Quartermaster General's Department 8, Engineer's Department 1, Survey's Department 8, Record Office 74. That makes a total increase of 267. Adding those to the pre-war employees gives a total of 399 permanents.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That answers my question in a way, but then again it does not. I want to know why there has been this increase in these other branches, leaving aside as abnormal and non-permanent the Record Office, the Central Registry and the Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch. Why are eight more employees required in the Survey's Branch, for instance?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend has
surely lost sight of this fact: In the year 1919, we had a staff of over 8,000 in the Militia Department; that was after the war. On the first of January last year we had cut that down to 5,200; that was the figure when I took charge of the department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister has done well.	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: To-day the figure is down to 1,200. I cannot reduce any faster than I have done. When I do reduce I receive a good many complaints, not all coming from this side of the House. I am reducing the staff as fast as the work will permit. It is not a very pleasant task to have to reduce as fast as I have had to.
I have got it down to the point now where I must maintain a reasonable staff if the work of the department is to go on. Between now and the end of the year I expect to let out between 50 and 75 permanent employees, who have been made permanent for the reason I stated before.

The Civil Service Commission, under the statute, is authorized to give permanents a preference when let out and a vacancy occurs in some other department. If they were temporary, they would have no preference. In order to retain good men, we have had to do that. Some of these men are practically indispensible. Their knowledge is knowledge they have gained in the four years of the war. There are certain men we cannot let go without great loss to the service. I can assure my hon. friend that we have cut the staff down just as fast as circumstances would permit, and just as close as it can be cut, but instead of receiving thanks, I am sorry to say I am receiving anything but thanks in the letters which I am receiving, some anonymous, some signed, some from members, some from relatives and friends. It is not pleasant to reduce the staff as rapidly as I have had to, particularly in view of the unemployment situation in this country. I can assure my hon. friend we have had a good reason for retaining every man who has been retained, and that they are all performing service for the money received.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I heartily sympathize
with the minister. I know his soft heart must have been touched by the many appeals by members of Parliament. I can appreciate, too, his argument that members of the Civil Service would resign their positions if they were not made permanent. As to that, I put it to any hon. member of this House: Did he ever see any member of the Civil Service resign under any consideration? I think the experience of most of us would lead us to believe that the resignations that would occur through not being made permanent must be very few and far between. The other reason given by the minister, that it is necessary to make them permanent in order that they may obtain an entre into other branches of the service, is rather a peculiar one, too. We let them out of the Militia Department, but before doing so, we make sure they will find a home in some other department of the Government that might not be criticized so severely as the Militia Department. I cannot understand that line of argument at all.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not correct, of course. The law of this country provides that a man who has been a permanent employee, and who has been let out, will be given the preference when a vacancy occurs in another department, over a man who was not permanent.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The department says: We find, for some reason or other, that we want to get rid of him so we make him permanent in order that he may be transferred to some other department. That,
I think, is stating the case of the minister fairly.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not; pardon
me for saying so.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think it is. However,
I do not want to be drawn into an argument on this point. I wanted to know why we had eight new men in the Survey Branch, and the minister held forth on his troubles and tribulations with regard to members of Parliament requesting him to retain certain members of the staff.


Michael Clark: I did not get the minister's figures as to the number of men in the service when he took over the portfolio and the number now.


Hugh Guthrie: There were 5,280 at
headquarters and in the 11 military districts when I took charge, and the number is now under 1,200 throughout Canada.


Michael Clark: In what time has that
reduction been made?


Hugh Guthrie: In fourteen months.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the number of
males and females in the department, and of the males, how many are returned soldiers who served in the late war? How many temporaries are there also?


Hugh Guthrie: Of 269 additional
permanent appointments that are included in this item, 88 are returned soldiers. There are 60 other males, and 121 females.


Mr. CRERAR:: The total number of
employees in the department, as given on pages 76 and 77, is 441; that is the number we are making provision for. It seems that the minister has reduced it by [DOT] 42, leaving a total of 399. How does that compare with the staff, say, in 1914, before the war?


Hugh Guthrie: There were 117 permanent employees before the war.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There has been an increase from 117 to 399?


Hugh Guthrie: There have been 269
additional appointments.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am asking for information and not criticising; but it seems to me that we should now be able to get back to something like pre-war conditions in this respect, and if 116, or 117 could do the



business before the war, why should 390 odd men be required now?


Hugh Guthrie: In the course of three
or four years we shall no doubt be able to get back to pre-war conditions; but in the meantime we have a new department, the Record Office, which we never had before, and which will have to continue for five, six or seven years yet. That department employs the largest portion of the staff. The Central Registry, which employed two or three clerks before the war, became an enormous institution during the war, but it is now down to about forty-three; and the Assigned Pay and Separation Allowance Branch, which did not exist before 1914, was a huge institution during the war. It is gradually coming down, but it will be a year or two at least before any substantial reduction can be made there. Thousands upon thousands of disputed claims for separation allowance and for assigned pay are still pending and have to be dealt with by that department. That department is also used by the Soldiers' Settlement Board, by the Pensions Board, and by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, as are also the Central Registry and the Record Office. Without these three departments I doubt whether the Pensions Board or the other boards could function at all, because they would not have the information they require. The staff are kept hard at work, and they put in long hours. A reduction is being gradually made, and we let out a good many from week to week. The first of this month, a number were dispensed with, and I hope within a reasonable time to get down to pre-war conditions.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What about the Survey
Branch?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member
might take that up on the Surveys item;
I shall have the information then. There is a special item in the Estimates for survey work.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Here we have a lot of
topographers, etc., and I should like to get the information now.


Hugh Guthrie: As the House is aware, the purpose of the Survey Branch is to make military surveys; it conducts the topographical survey of Canada. A very little portion of the map of Canada is done from year to year, and the work is not so much for the purpose of producing the map as it is for training military map draughtsmen. A very important part of the education of our militia and permanent force as

well is military draughtsmanship, and it is for that purpose that the Survey Branch is maintained in this department. I will give my hon. friend a resume of what is done and who are employed. Mr. Phelan is in full charge of all the instrumental control on which the maps are based. Major Browne is in full charge of all the topographic work, each being a supervisor of his section. Messrs. A. E. Attfield and A. Thomas are the more experienced topographers and have sub-charge of parties of junior topographers in the field. They also act as examiners of the field work. Messrs. Plamondon and Hay were not appointed until they had proved themselves to be specially efficient and reliable, after several years' service as seasonal employees. They both act as instrument men in charge of parties in the field; when required, also as topographers. Mr. Plamondon is also a trained air pilot and photographer. Though Mr. Cutts is classed as a military topographer, his duties are those of custodian of survey instruments and equipment; also of survey records. Mr. Cranston has had long experience in the Survey Division, in draughting and compiling maps. The other four gentlemen have been trained as lithographic map draughtsmen in commercial lithographic firms. The work done by these men is first class in every respect, whether on paper, stone or zinc. Owing to the increase of the work by reproduction of diagrams, the publication of the 1-inch maps has been retarded considerably. The printing plant could handle work from twice the number of draughtsmen, at least. Messrs. Smith, Crawford and Gow came from the printing establishment of the Geographical Section, General Staff, England, where they were trained as photographer, printer and lithographer, respectively. Messrs. Martell, Soutar and Carroll have received their training at the Survey Division. The three first men are experts in their different lines, and are deserving of every credit for the present efficient conditions of their departments. Of the two lithographic helpers, one acts as press helper and machine cleaner, etc., the other as stone polisher and plate grainer. J. Martell is assistant photographer, but acts as press feeder while printing is proceeding. Mr. Perkins is a specially skilful engraver, having been trained at the Ordnance Survey, England. His duties are to correct imperfections in etched copper plate originals; also to make corrections and additions to the old plates. He has

also engraved some very fine plates, direct. The map being the final test of the skill and efficiency of the whole staff, the Quebec 1-inch sheet, the last to he published, if examined in that light, will show a high state of efficiency at the present time. I can give my hon. friend a list of civilian employees of the Survey Division. I will first state the civilian employees on the permanent list before the war. Before reading the list I may say that this Survey Branch was started by the late Sir Frederick Borden as a direct result of the report of General Lake, who at that time was the Imperial Officer Commanding in this country. Most of these men have been installed in the branch for a long time and have become very efficient and capable officers. The list is as follows:
List of Civilian Employees of Survey Division, Militia and Defence.-Civilian Employees on Permanent List Before the War.
M. P. Phelan, Topographic Engineer.
Major J. E. Browne, Topographic Engineer.
A. E. Atfleld, Junior Topographic Engineer.
A. Thomas, Junior Topographic Engineer.
A. H. Cranston, Principal Map Draughtsman.
L. G. Smith, Senior Photographer.
J. L. Crawford, Lithographic Printer.
H. R. S. Gow, Lithographic Foreman.
W. G. Humphreys, Library Helper.
D.	McFarlane, Clerk-Stenographer.
Civilan Employees on Temporary List Before the War.-
A. J. A. Cutts, Military Topographer.
Civilian Employees Added to Permanent List During War-
J. G. DesRivieres, Senior Map Draughtsman.
F.	W. Hewitt, Senior Map Draughtsman. Civilian Employees Engaged During the War
who are Recommended for Permanency-
C.	E. Soutar, Lithographic Helper.
A. J. A. Cutts, Military Topographer.
E.	A. Plamondon, Military Topographer.
G.	Davidson, Senior Map Draughtsman.
T. Hickson, Senior Map Draughtsman.
D.	Carrol], Lithographic Helper.
W. C. Perkins, Engraver.
J. C. Hay, Military Topographer.
J. Marteli, Assistant Photographer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Would it give the minister much work to find out what proportion of this vote is applied to the payment of salaries of parties connected with the demobilization?


Hugh Guthrie: None of this particular item.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps I do not understand it aright but there is an asterisk referring the reader to the bottom of page 9 which says:
These votes include salaries and contingencies carried under the War Appropriation and Demobilization votes.	.
145i -
Would the minister explain what that means?


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid I am encumbering Hansard with this explanation. Will my hon. friend excuse me if I put
it on record again.	,


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am only a layman and therefore would like to have the explanation.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this is the fourth time I have given it. During the war only 120 of the present number of 399 represented in the item were carried under this vote and charged to the Militia Department. All the other employees of the department were war employees essentially, and they were charged to War Appropriation during the war, and to Demobilization after the armistice. Now it is thought that they should be charged against the department that is employing them. Three hundred and ninety-nine are included in the vote enumerated at page 8. They will in the future be charged directly to the Department of Militia, and not to War or Demobilization vote. There is an apparent increase but it is more apparent than real. Before the war there were 120 permanent employees. There have been during the war many thousands, of them, but we propose to make 399 permanent and to charge them directly to the Department of Militia.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For demobilization?


Hugh Guthrie: No, until we are able to reduce and get the staff down to something like normal conditions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Under what item are
the employees connected with demobilization paid?


Hugh Guthrie: These employees we are now discussing in the Civil Government vote are yet largely engaged on demobilization work, but the temporary employees, and there are 800 of them, are paid out of the demobilization vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the minister when he expects the demobilization will be over?


Hugh Guthrie: Strictly speaking it is over now.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the money for then?


Hugh Guthrie: The forces have been finally and completely demobilized both here and in Great Britain, save only those that ,are still patients in the Military

Hospital in Winnipeg. But the work consequent upon demobilization and upon the war itself will not, I think, he over for some years yet to come. As I said a few moments ago, it is quite possible that tlhe Record Office may have to continue with a considerable staff for five, six, seven or eight years yet to come. The others will more likely be reduced. It is my expectation that during the current year from fifty to seventy-five will be dropped. We will be able to drop that many from the permanent list, and at the same time each month we are reducing the temporary force also.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If the demobilization is over why should the sum of $7,700,000 be asked for this year?


Hugh Guthrie: That question might be pertinent if you mean by demobilization simply the discharge of your army; but there are a tremendous number of outstanding accounts and adjustments yet to be dealt with, and claims are still coming in almost daily. There are claims in Great Britain-claims by shipping companies, claims by railroad companies; claims in this country and in London in respect of munition supplies-hardly a day passes that new claims do not come forward which have to be discussed, considered, and adjusted. So that this vote for demobilization, which last year was thirty-eight millions, we are glad this year to be able to reduce to seven millions, and our hope is that next year we may cut it down to one or two millions, or possibly wipe it out altogether. But so long as these-purely war claims -are outstanding it would be wrong to charge them against the annual vote of the Militia Department.


Mr. GORDON:: What investigation has the minister made as to the financial standing of these 120 females? I am advised by a person who was formerly a member of the stall of the Militia Department that a large number of these young ladies are daughters of men in affluent circumstances and do not need the positions, that they might very well be replaced by returned men. Has the minister made an investigation into all these circumstances so as to ascertain whether these young ladies should be kept on or not?


Hugh Guthrie: Of course we do not have the right to choose those whom we desire in every case because the Civil Service Commission makes the selection; we prepare the list but the commission makes the selection. I am not aware that there

is any foundation for the statement made by the member for West Peterborough, more than that, I believe the 120 female employees in question are of the ordinary type of a similar number of women employees in this or any other department. We try to select them by the rule of efficiency as nearly as we can, but in the first instance we try, as far as possible, to retain the services of returned soldiers. I may say that I have had many conferences with returned soldiers themselves with regard to the service, and I think I can say that the representatives of the soldier bodies are very well satisfied with what we have been able to do in the Militia Department in that respect.


George Gordon: I had the case in mind of a young woman whose husband was killed and who was a clerk in the British Admiralty office. She is unable to obtain a position, even of a temporary character, although I am told that there are many young women employed in the service in the city of Ottawa whose fathers are men of very considerable means and who do not need the positions at all and should not be there. I think the minister should make some representation to the Civil Service Commission, or introduce some amendment to the existing law, to provide that in the Department of Militia at least no persons except those who have the right by reason of war or other service, should be employed.


Hugh Guthrie: I think if the list is
examined in the Militia Department it will be found in every instance that the female employees are the representatives of families which have suffered in the war through the loss of brothers and fathers. I do not know anything about the wealth or affluence of these families, but their war sacrifice was taken into consideration. This list of female employees has been carefully con-my knowledge of the facts that there is sidered and examined, and I am sure from no substantial ground for the remarks of my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon), although there may be an odd case here and there open to criticism. Efficiency must count for something, but so far as possible we have considered first the returned soldier, and then the relatives of the returned soldier.


George Gordon: Does the Civil Service Commission consider the returned men and the families of those who rendered war service before making these appointments?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand they do.
It is legally their duty to give such classes the preference.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Shall
the item as amended carry?


Mr. PEDLOW:: No, I have been waiting for some time to get an opening to follow up the discussion of Item No. 5 providing for salaries amounting to $643,751, the details of which are to be found on page 76 of the Estimates. This particular item consumed a lot of time last night, and the part that perhaps obtained the major portion of consideration was that which refers more particularly to the purchasing branch of the Department of Militia and Defence. It was shown by me last night, and it was admitted to a large extent by the minister, that either this purchasing branch . or the Purchasing Commission might be dispensed with. It seems to me that there is a duplication of service, not only in this department but also in some of the other departments. I find there are in this particular branch of the service twenty-two principal employees with, an aggregate salary of $40,980. In connection with them there is no doubt a staff of assistants representing another substantial amount for salaries? The minister, with his usual good nature, explained thoroughly to the committee both last night and to-night the various items in question. I find that this estimate calls for 441 employees. The minister has informed us that after this Estimate was prepared a decision was arrived at to strike off 42 of these employees. He also informed us that a certain number of those included in this Estimate will be retained in the service owing to war conditions. The Record Office claims 74 of these, the Separation and Assigned Pay 50, and the Central Registry Office 43, or a total of . 167. These deducted from the balance remaining after strik-
10 p.m. ing off the 42 leaves 232 employees. Now, if you deduct the employees in the Militia Department in 1914, numbering 117, that leaves still a balance of 115 unaccounted for. I would like the minister when answering to give an explanation as to the duties of these 115 employees.
My principal object in discussing this matter to-night is to focus attention more particularly on the purchasing staff. As I have stated, we have a large number of employees in this particular branch of the department, numbering 22 altogether. There are five purchasing agents with salaries of
$2,580, $2,220, $3,420, $2,280 and $1,680 respectively. The minister announced last night that the services of some of these men had been dispensed with, which would, of course, reduce the number employed in this particular kind of work. In addition to those discharged, a number of other employees are engaged in that class of work, including inspectors of hardware, leather products, textiles, mechanical and ordnance stores, assistant to the senior inspector of textile products, and so on. Their salaries aggregate $40,980. No doubt connected with this purchasing staff there are assistants of various kinds, such as stenographers, store clerks, file clerks, and so on. Probably the salaries of these would amount to no less than $9,020. That would make in round numbers a total of $50,000 for the purchasing section of the Militia Department. While we are spending all this money for purchasing supplies for the Department of Militia and Defence, I would remind the committee that we are also providing in these Estimates, under another heading, $80,000 odd for a purchasing commission. As I explained last night, either one or the other of these purchasing agencies should be dispensed with. If the purchasing agency of the department is not capable of performing the work for which it was originally organized its services should be dispensed with. If it is capable of performing the work, then I claim that the services of the purchasing commission should not be requisitioned to assist the agents whom we are paying so much money in connection with this department.
The minister informed us last night, and he has repeated the information this evening, that it is the intention during the near future to strike off a further number of employees from the staff, possibly fifty to seventy-five. Allowing a very low average of $1,000 each for the salaries of these employees, and putting their number at fifty, that represents an additional $50,000 in this Estimate that should not be required. I think the services of a further number of employees in the department might very well be dispensed with, seeing that it is the intention of the Government to curtail expenses as far as possible.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Alleged.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: We will give them credit for the full measure of their intention. They have announced time and again, and the minister has repeated it to us to-night, that it has been their desire in arranging the Estimates for the present year to cut

down the items to the last cent. Well, I think there are very many "last cents" still included, and I would suggest some of these "last cents" that might well be eliminated. I find in this list of employees a military contract engineer with a salary of $3,000, two topographical engineers whose combined salaries amount to $4,800, a map draftsman with a salary of $2,340, and two junior topographical engineers whose combined salaries amount to $3,840. It strikes me that a large part of this work might well be done by another department, say the Department of the Interior. That department has a complete staff of geographers, men expert in that kind of work. I think that saving, like charity, should begin at home, and if the Government wish to show their seriousness in the matter of saving they should eliminate all unnecessary duplication and centralize work of this kind in departments where it can be properly done. Why should the Department of Militia maintain expert geographers on their staff when there are men in the Department of the Interior who are thoroughly equipped to do the work and who probably have quite sufficient time to do it? Then, as I go through the list I find, 1 junior architect at $1,920. I may say that I do not know these gentlemen; personally I have nothing against them. I am merely discussing the matter as one who is really desirous of reducing the expenditure for this year. Then there is 1 junior engineer at $1,920. Surely this work could be performed by the Public Works Department. Then there are four senior map draughtsmen with salaries totalling $7,680; four military topographers, with salaries totalling $6,427; one senior photographer, $1,920; one photographer, $1,560; one assistant photographer $1,080. I do not know why the Militia Department requires the services of photographers. Are they to photograph the men on parade, or the officers, or the young ladies in the department? Just what kind of service are these photographers supposed to perform? Then there is another draughtsman at $1,200. It is not very much, but it is possibly all his services are worth. There is one copper plate map engraver at $2,040; two draughtsmen with salaries totalling $3,040; two lithographers, total $1,976; 2 pressmen and printers, $4,040; two duplicating machine operators, combined salaries, $2,220; one librarian, $2100; three secretaries to executive at $1,860 each, total $5,580. This makes a grand total for salaries in the list given of $58,-
683. The minister has told us that it is his intention during the current year to dispense with the services of between fifty and seventy-five employees. If we add to the amount that I have named, $58,683, the $50,000 for the purchasing staff and their assistants and $50,000 for say fifty employees that the minister proposes to dispense with during the current year, we get a total of $158,683. The total amount of the Estimate now under consideration is $643,751, almost three times the amount asked for last year. I do not think the minister has fully explained this large increase. He has told us that the staff was reduced from 5,000 a year ago to 2,500 the first of the year and now to 399. The minister himself has suggested a reduction in the Estimate of $57,320, leaving a balance of $586,431. Now, my desire is to assist the minister, and I suggest that he make a further reduction in this Estimate of $150,000, which is $8,683 less than the amount I have given as a possible reduction. I therefore beg to move, as an amendment to this item as amended, that a further sum of $150,000 be struck off the total amount of this vote, I am sure that this proposal will meet with the wishes of most hon. members. We all desire to cut down the Estimates as much as possible and we should show by our attitude in this regard that we are really sincere when we profess that we are desirous of carrying on the administration of the public affairs at the least possible cost to the country.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In support of my hon. friend's motion, I have this to say: we have called the minister's attention to the fact that this vote under the head of Civil Government has been increased from $227,000 last year to $643,000 this year. In explanation of this large increase the minister tells us that we have been obliged owing to the war to add certain new branches and certain new services. He mentions three principal services. The Record Office costs about $685,000, of which $85,000 is included in this item. We have also a Pay and Allowance Branch which costs a large sum, of which $96,000 is included in this item, and we have a Central Registry, of which $60,000 is included in this item. Therefore, the minister's explanation covers really three branches, the expenditure in all amounting to something like $25,000, which, if we grant the minister's contentions to be true, would bring the item up to something like $500,000. As regards

the other $143,000 we have no explanation at all except that demobilization could not take place at once; that we could not simply "right turn and dismiss". There is no explanation why the different branches of the service which formerly existed must now have largely increased staffs. It seems to me that in the war appropriation and in the three special services mentioned, we have amply looked after the war and its consequences.
As my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) has pointed out, we have a duplication of purchasing services which might very well be done away with. We have a purchasing commission, appointed by the Government without sanction of Parliament, which is carrying on and doing all the purchasing of the Department of Militia and Defence as well as other departments. In spite of that, in this Estimate we have allowance made for different officials in connection with purchasing, and the sums to be voted for these amount to over $40,000. We have also a department of topography. The minister stated with perfect truth yesterday evening that topography was a most important branch of the military service; but if so, and it is important for soldiers to learn topography, why does the minister not employ soldiers in this branch so that they may learn topography and map reading and drawing instead of taking' in civilians to do the work? There is an important branch of the service called the Engineers. This engineering branch did remarkably good work during the war, and I do not see any justification for taking the work of engineering out of their hands and placing it in the hands of civil engineers. If any importance is to be attached to the work of military engineers, surely they ought to be allowed to practise at their profession in peace time.
Another item to which my attention was called by my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow), although it is a small item, might very well be taken as an example of what might occur in other branches of the department. A salary of $2,100 is voted for a librarian. I do not know that there is a salary also for an assistant librarian. I am saying this subject to correction. But I notice in the Estimates that although the librarian obtains $2,100, we have never in previous years voted more than $1,000 for the purchase of books for this library, and this year we are voting $2,000, so that we pay a man more money for looking after the books than we do for the books themselves. If it is only a question of looking after the books, we could very easily dispense with the services of this librarian. We have a large number of soldiers otherwise employed in the department who could I am sure, give a good1 portion of their time to reading these books and taking care of the library without there being any necessity for a librarian. In support of my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow), I urge upon the minister to reduce his Estimate by the sum named of $158,000. By so doing he will not injure the efficiency of his services, and he will at the same time be showing an example of economy in the department which should, I am sure, be the first to show examples of economy to the country.
Amendment (Mr. Pedlow) negatived: yeas, 59; nays, 76.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Allowances, active mili.tia, ?120,000.


Hugh Guthrie: This item is the same as it was last year and in previous years.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister give some explanation as to the allowances to officers of the active militia for command pay? How much is for drill instruction, how much for care of arms, how much for postage and so on?


Hugh Guthrie: The item embraces the following: Command pay and drill instruction, $76,000; care of arms, $20,000; postage allowance, $18,000; contingent allowance, $2,000; trumpeter's allowance, $1,000; capitation grant, $1,000; allowance for fitting uniforms, $500; proficiency allowance, $1,500; total, $120,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What are the trumpeter's duties? The minister does his own trumpeting pretty well.


Hugh Guthrie: I would have thought that a soldier of so much distinction as my hon. friend would have known that the allowance is not for the duties of a trumpeter. It is a special annual allowance of $3 to each trumpeter who has qualified at a permanent school and is found to be efficient at the annual training.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why the $500 for fitting uniforms?


Hugh Guthrie: There is an allowance of $1 apiece for fitting uniforms. As my hon. friend knows, all uniforms do not fit, and we try to adjust them as well as we can to the human body.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is an item for
special sized clothing under Clothing and

Necessaries. Why should not this $500 he brought under that item?


Hugh Guthrie: The Canadian Officers' Training Corps, which my hon. friend knows is in existence, gets an allowance of $1 for each member on his enrollment in that corps, under the Pay and Allowance Regulations.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is that called capitation?


Hugh Guthrie: No, although the capitation grant also pertains to the Officers' Training Corps. That is an annual grant of $5 to the Military Committee of the university for each member qualified as efficient. That is allowed under paragraph 63 of the Regulations.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why does that not go into the Cadet Services? Is there a distinction between the Officers' Training Corps and the Cadet Services?


Hugh Guthrie: We have tried as far as possible to keep the cadet training separate from the military training. The chief reason for separating them is to make the cadet service as far as possible a civil matter. The officers who take the Officers' Training course are usually above the age for cadet training.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is there not an item for $20,000 for drill instruction?


Hugh Guthrie: That was for care of arms.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: To whom is it paid?


Hugh Guthrie: To officers commanding regiments of cavalry and infantry, and officers of other corps. It varies from $10 to $170 where there is no salaried caretaker, and from $5 to $100 where a paid caretaker is provided.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Where are these arms situated?


Hugh Guthrie: In the armouries
throughout the country.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are they regularly inspected?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, yes, they are inspected by the officers of the district headquarters.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: To whom is command pay given?


Hugh Guthrie: To the officers commanding the unit.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In cases where the unit has not drilled, does the officer commanding the unit obtain this command pay, and care of arms pay also?


Hugh Guthrie: No, he only gets a portion. Last year he was allowed 50 per cent of the pre-war basis, not full pay.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If his regiment does not drill at all, why should he receive any command pay? Is there any reason?


Hugh Guthrie: The theory was that the various units had been pretty well knocked to pieces during the war, and they were all more or less in the process of re-organization. The commanding officers of the various units have devoted a tremendous amount of time to the work of re-organization, and while the unit in many instances was not up to the standard where it could drill and obtain a grant therefor, an allowance equal to 50 per cent of the pre-war basis was granted.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Can the minister assure us that none of this money was granted to commanding officers who had no battalions or whose battalions did not drill? I do not know that we should be called upon to pay this command pay at all. When a man becomes a colonel of the militia, in the majority of cases he is only too glad to get the title and if it entails a little extra expense I do not think any commanding officer begrudges that $200 or $300.	The work which he does,
I am sure, does not amount to very much. He has to attend drills, it is true, and meetings of his battalion or regiment, but so no doubt have the subalterns and all the other officers, and the latter without obtaining the kudos and honour attached to the position of commanding officer. I know it is an old custom to give this command pay, but since the Government and the Minister of Militia have frequently stated that we should economize as much as possible, I do not see why we should not cut out this command pay altogether, particularly if the minister cannot state whether or not all the officers commanding actually had their regiments re-organized during the time for which they received this command pay.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I think there is a misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. gentleman in regard to this command pay. I can speak with authority of the city corps in particular. I think that at least 95 per

cent of the officers commanding the city corps never drew a cent of this command pay. I can speak positively of Ontario. I know that no commanding officer of any city corps in that province ever drew a cent of command pay for himself. Every dollar went back for the benefit of the militia. The officers, non-commissioned officers, and men refunded the small pittance they got from the annual training, and the officers commanding refunded their command pay. They used the money to maintain their regiments iri the efficient state in which the war found them. They did not draw a cent of this pay for themselves, but maintained their units on a sound foundation in order to rehabilitate them after the war. I know cases, particularly in Toronto, where the regimental funds were turned over to the expeditionary force units they raised. My home regiment turned its regimental funds, amounting to $22,000, over towards their expeditionary force units.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the hon. gentleman's regiment?


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: The 48th Highlanders of Toronto. Then the 13th Royal Regiment of Hamilton, which I had the honour to command, contributed $13,000 to Canadian Expeditionary Force units. None of these officers in the last ten or fifteen years have drawn a cent of command pay. It was all turned in again to the regimental funds for the purpose of maintaining bands, paying a sergeant major, and the other numerous incidental expenses that a commanding officer is put to. The position entails a great demand on the commanding officer's purse as well as time. I think the efficient state of the militia units when the war broke out should convince everybody that the commanding officers were fully justified in using these grants for the benefit of their regiments.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would be the last to criticise the ex-minister or any officers of the Militia Department who turn in their pay to the regimental funds, but that only goes to support my argument that we should not give this command pay at all. If the officers do not need this money, and can turn it in to the regimental fund, I do not see why the Government should be called upon to give it. Evidently, officers commanding regiments outside the cities of Ontario, and this is true, as I know of my own knowledge, of the cities of Quebec, pocket this money to be used for their own
purposes-legitimate purposes under the statute. If this grant is not necessary for the maintenance of the dignity of the officer commanding in city regiments situated in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec and Winnipeg, I do not see why we should make such a grant to keep up the dignity of the officers in the rural regiments.
I know, as no doubt many hon. gentlemen opposite know, that it is a very costly business to keep up a militia regiment in the city, and while I agree that the colonel who hands over his command pay to his regiment is worthy of commendation, still, on the other hand, that is no reason why the Government should make this grant. Either the Government can get enough money to support the militia or it should state openly that it is not able to do so. It has been said by the ex-minister, the member for Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), that during the war a large number of these commanding officers kept up their battalions at great expense to themselves. I have no doubt about that, but I notice, in looking through the Auditor General's Report, that last year command pay was granted to a number of regiments, some of which certainly had not been drilled up to strength in the years 1918 and 1919, years for which command pay was given. I know nothing about any other district than that from which I come, but I find that the officers of certain regiments there, which never drilled during 1918 and 1919, drew command pay.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Name them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Every regiment in the Quebec military district apparently drew command pay, but I do not know that any of these regiments drilled during the war. There was a composite regiment composed of one or two. The point I make is that either the commanding officer of any of these regiments was, where he should have been, in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, in which case he drew his pay, or he was not in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and in that case he had no business to draw command pay for another regiment. If the system is to be continued, I think the item referring to command pay should be eliminated, and I therefore move that this item be decreased by $76,000.


Mr. PECK:: While I quite understand that my hon. friend is talking for political effect-


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: That is all.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: -and I suppose it is good polities in some parts of the country to decry the militia-I think that no man who did distinguished service in the army should suggest for one moment that a cent of command pay was in any way misappropriated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I did not say that.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: So far as I know, no commanding officer in any city or rural corps has ever drawn a cent of command pay, and it is unfortunate that we should have any insinuation-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to correct my hon. and gallant friend. I made no insinuation whatever against any commanding officer; I said he took the money legally, and if my hon. friend construed my remarks as an insinuation, I am only too glad to withdraw any statement that lends itself to such a construction. I simply say that we should not have this item in our militia Estimates, hut I do not say that anybody takes any money unlawfully or illegally, or misappropriates it in any way.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Very well; if my hon. friend declares that he made no insinuation I am prepared to accept his statement. At the same time, I think we might very well seize this opportunity of paying a compliment to the militia men of the country, not only colonels and other officers, but men of the rank and file who from year to year gave every cent of pay to the general fund of their regiments. Everybody who knows anything about the militia knows that, and it would be a misfortune,
1 I think, if we should have even a doubt as to the patriotism of the militia, both before and throughout the war. My hon. friend must know that command pay is given for the purpose of reimbursing the commanding officer for certain necessary expenses-not social expenses-to which he is put in connection with his regiment; and it would be nothing short of a political disgrace in this country if this Parliament should cut down these Estimates, especially as we know that the department is always being assailed. My hon. friend the minister can never get the appropriations he requires for the purposes of a permanent militia, because, as I said a moment ago, it is considered good politics in some parts of the country to decry the militia.


Mr. CURRIE:: I hope my hon. and gallant friend will not press this motion. I have been a member of the militia for twenty-eight years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too long.


John Allister Currie: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is not often that I find myself in substantial agreement with my hon. friend from Simcoe as I do to-night. It would be a grave injustice to all the militia officers to make any insinuation to
the effect that they had misappropriated the public funds. I agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect, but I want him to help me to this extent:	Let him not allow
this House to get away with the impression, let him not attempt to impress the House with the notion that I have been insinuating that the colonels in the Canadian militia force have been misappropriating funds. If the hon. member wishes the idea to go out that such insinuations were made on the floor of this House he has but to make a speech such as he uttered a few moments ago. If the hon. member wishes to discuss the matter with me fairly and frankly he will do as he did in the beginning of his speech and admit that this money is not a payment to the colonels, or to the officers .commanding. He will admit that this money is voted simply as a species of grant made to help a militia battalion in its training. Well, if that be the case why in the world do we not call it a grant or pay the militia a sufficient amount of money. Then we would know, and the country as well, where we stand in this matter. We here vote a certain amount of money to every officer commanding presumably for his own use. He has a perfect right, under the law, to appropriate this money to his own use. If he does not wish to do so, if he wishes to give the money to his battalion, that is his affair; but my contention is that it is the duty of the Government to give this money frankly and openly and say "The Canadian Militia is not sufficiently paid; therefore, we want to make a grant for certain purposes. We want to make a grant for bands, and we want to make a grant 'for such and such a thing." Do not let us say we are giving it to the commanding officer if the commanding officer does not really receive it. I think the House and the country wish to know clearly where every cent of this militia money is going, and if we make it clear to the country that .this money is absolutely hecessary the better it will be for the militia itself and for the House as well.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is
trying to excuse himself for moving such a foolish motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: His motion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: -is a straight motion to strike the vote out. If there was anything in his argument he would move to change the manner in which the vote is defined,

but in order to wiggle out of the situation he now says "I am quite willing to pay the money as a grant, but I am not quite willing to pay it under its present title." Now I do not know any other way in which the vote could have been placed in the Estimates than the way in which it appears, so that it would have the right meaning and go to the right place, unless the commanding officer is mentioned. The money is spent for the regiment and it cannot be got under any other method. Even if it were submitted as a grant I am quite satisfied the hon. member would have made quite as long a speech and would have moved to strike it out. For that reason I say his argument has no foundation and I hope the House will vote this money as it has always done in the past. The reasons the hon. member has given for striking the vote out are not valid reasons to my mind nor do I think they will commend themselves to the public.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Guthrie moves
that item No. 88 "Allowances, active militia-$120,000" be now adopted. Mr. Power moves in amendment that the said item be reduced to the extent of $76,000. The question is on the amendment.
Amendment negatived-Yeas, 49, Nays, 89.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annual drill, $1,500,000.
['Mr. Guthrie moves\nthat item No. 88 "Allowances, active militia-$120,000" be now adopted. Mr. Power moves in amendment that the said item be reduced to the extent of $76,000. The question is on the amendment.\nAmendment negatived-Yeas, 49, Nays, 89.']
Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister explain the purpose of this item in view of the fact that we have so many soldiers in Canada that are already trained?


Hugh Guthrie: This expense is for the purpose of training the soldiers who are coming on. I must take issue with my hon. friend in the suggestion contained in his statement that "we have so many soldiers in Canada." It is a suggestion made by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last year when a similar vote was under [DOT] discussion. He seemed to take the ground that because we had perhaps as highly trained a force of experienced soldiers as any country possesses, that therefore we should not continue annual training; in other words, that this country should in future rely on the energy and bravery of the men who did so well for us in the last four or five years to protect us in the future. My view is that we had better get ready with another crop of men, and it is for the purpose of training the men now growing up and
[Mr. Currie. [
coming into our militia units that this $1,500,000 is asked. I must say that the amount is entirely inadequate for the purpose of training all the militia units that we would like to train. The amount for which a requisition was made in the first instance was $2,900,000. With the money asked for we will not be able to train the whole militia force this year. Last year we had no annual training except for city regiments, the reorganization not having sufficiently advanced for the holding of rural camps. Consequently there was a considerable saving in respect to this vote. In fact the total military expenditure last year was, I think, under $10,000,000, although the House voted $12,500,000. The main saving was on annual training, and the other large saving was on the arsenals at Quebec and Lindsay, which were closed for three or four months. This year, however, we propose to train the militia as far as we are able to with the money we are now asking Parliament to vote.	-
It will enable us to train a fairly representative proportion of the various units. In cavalry there will be twenty-three regiments at sixty-five per cent of strength. These will be required to train at local headquarters for a period of nine days, or in local camps in case the distance is short in order to save transportation. The horse allowance for the purpose of the cavalry units has to be estimated at $2 per day. In former years it was esimated at $1 a day, but from inquiry made in various parts of the country I think we will be well within the mark when we estimate the allowance at $2 per day for the current year. In artillery seventy-five batteries at eighty per cent of strength will train at local camps' for six days with horses. Then firing detachments will proceed to artillery practice camps for a four-day training. The old twelve days' training would be much better, I grant, than the six days' training proposed, but we have had to cut down the number of days in order to keep within the proposed expenditure of a million and a half dollars. However, when each battery trains a firing detachment will 11 p.m. be selected, and that detachment will be sent for fire training to some artillery practice camps for a period of four days. Infantry city corps, sixty-five battalions at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters for nine days, and not proceed to camps of instruction. Week-end musketry camps will be provided where required if money in the vote is available. Forty battalions of rural

corps will train at sixty-five per cent of strength, and twenty battalions will train on the same basis as the city corps themselves at local headquarters or at local camps for a period of nine days. Engineers, twelve field companies at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters or at local camps for a period of nine days. Signal corps: eleven companies at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters nine days. Cyclist corps: eight companies at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters nine days. Machine guns: twenty-five batteries at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters for nine days. Officers' training corps: twenty companies at sixty-five per cent strength will train at local headquarters nine days or at Ideal camps if feasible. Medical units will train at local headquarters at sixty-five per cent strength. Eight companies of army service corps will train at local headquarters or at local camps at sixty-five per cent strength.
That is all the training we are able to do on the vote which is now asked. If we trained all the available units to the full strength, my information is that about $2,900,000 would be required.


Frank S. Cahill: How many men were
trained last year and what was the cost of their training?
i


Hugh Guthrie: Two hundred and six units were trained last year. I have not got the exact number of the men who did train, but the units were not more than twenty to tweny-five per cent of strength.


Frank S. Cahill: What was the cost?


Hugh Guthrie: They trained at local
headquarters. There were no local camps last year.


Frank S. Cahill: How much was spent last year for this training?


Hugh Guthrie: My note is, "There will be a saving of $500,000 in this vote," that is, in the vote of last year. So in round numbers $1,000,000 was spent, and the training was largely of the city corps.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not oppose
this vote as strongly as I propose to do if the history of the last five or six years had not taught humanity that military preparations do not constitute any real defense of mankind. Of course that doctrine may have a somewhat strange sound to the ears of some military gentleman in this House, but I think if anybody will sit down
quietly and consider the events of the last five years he will be brought to the inevitable conclusion that the policy pursued in Europe of one country building up vast armaments against another, only resulted in the wiping out of a great proportion of the youth of all the beligerent nations in Europe-aye, not only the youth of those nations, but of the nations of other parts of the world who engaged in that war. Of course, militarists are never satisfied. Some of them wish to raise a fresh "crop" of young men for the next slaughter; and if the world in future depends, as it has depended in the past, on military preparation for security, war will come. Surely something has been learned during the last five years, surely we in Canada can lead the way in the reduction of military expenditure. There is no danger in the direction of our northern frontier, bounded practically by the north pole. Our neighbours to the south are bound to us by ties of language, custom, law, and relationship. There are almost as many Canadians and sons and daughters of Canadians in the United States as there are in Canada. Surely there is an opportunity for Canada to lead the way to reduction of armements and military expenditures. We are desperately hard up; we need every cent we can raise for the necessary expenses of the country. Surely this annual drill can be postponed for another year. Surely we should give the world a chance to devise some organization for the settlement of international disputes otherwise than by the blood of the young men. For, after all, it is the young men under twenty-five who fight wars and it is the older men of over forty-five who are in control of the policies that lead to war. I would invite the co-operation of all men in this House who are opposed to this sort of thing to vote down this resolution, and at least to postpone the annual drill until another year.


John Wesley Edwards: I shall not accept the
invitation of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), because I think the theory that he announces is entirely wrong. We had not in Canada, any more than they had in Great Britain or in France, control over the military policy of Germany. If Great Britain had been as prepared as Lord Roberts would have had her prepared in 1914; had our great neighbour to the south been in a position to take an aggressive stand at the beginning of the war, the struggle would have lasted but a short time. I doubt very much whether there would have been a war at all; in any

event, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved. It is pacifists of the stamp of my hon. friend from Brome, men who go up and down the country preaching that sort of doctrine, who are responsible for the slaughter of millions of men that took place during the five or six years of the war. I am not desirous that money should be wasted on military preparations, but a country which is worth while is worth making preparations to defend; a country which shuts its eyes to the attitude and actions of other nations, folds its arms blissfully and says that it wants to have peace with everybody, will some day fall victim to the country which has kept itself prepared. My hon. friend might just as well say that the city of Ottawa in maintaining a police force was inviting people to go out on the streets and raise a row. There would be just as much sense in that argument as there is in the contention that we should not make some military preparation. I am not a military man; I am like my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low), a very peaceable kind of man. But I repeat, that experience has taught us that it was the pacifists of Europe, of Great Britain, and of other countries, who were responsible more than anybody else for the great slaughter that took place during the war.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I notice that the next item is for cadet services, $450,000. The member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) contends that only those who share the views entertained by hon. members of this side are anxious to reduce the military expenditures. For his benefit, I would like to read the following statement sent to the New York World by the ex-Prime Minister, the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), in a reply to a request from that journal, which is conducting a crusade for general disarmament on the part of Great Britain, the United States and Japan:
I sympathize most deeply and earnestly with every reasonable proposal for the reduction of armaments. Untold sacrifices endured in the great war will have been wholly in vain if the nations are still to compete in a mad struggle for supremacy in the power of destruction. The economic folly of such a policy is too manifest to be gainsaid. Is there not a sorrowful and bitter protest from millions on the verge of starvation in Europe and which must ring i4i the ears of every thoughtful person.
Continued competition in armaments assuredly brings the nations to ultimate disintegration of existing civilization, the foundations of which have already been rudely shaken. How can it be otherwise if to those who ask for bread civilization gives armaments. In the boundary between Canada and the United States, unfortified for more than a century, save by a common trust which has never been

violated, and in the intimate friendship which that just confidence has maintained and strengthened, we have given to humanity a lesson which ought never to be forgotten in the determination of this supreme question.
That is dated January 8, 1921, and it goes to show that the outstanding men of Canada are to-day unanimously of the opinion that in view of our great indebtedness and of the burdens which bear upon us-a condition which is common to all nations-we should lessen expenditures for military purposes. In the face of the problems that confront us; in view of our burdens of taxation, which may be increased in a few days when the Budget is brought down; in view of the extent to which people are trying to find ways and means of meeting their income tax liabilities, the returns for which, must ba in by the end of this month-for all these reasons, I feel justified in moving that item No. 89 be reduced by $750,000.
Amendment (Mr. McCoig) negatived: Yeas, 47; nays, 72.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet services, $450,000.
["I notice that the next item is for cadet services, $450,000. The member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) contends that only those who share the views entertained by hon. members of this side are anxious to reduce the military expenditures. For his benefit, I would like to read the following statement sent to the New York World by the ex-Prime Minister, the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), in a reply to a request from that journal, which is conducting a crusade for general disarmament on the part of Great Britain, the United States and Japan:\nI sympathize most deeply and earnestly with every reasonable proposal for the reduction of armaments. Untold sacrifices endured in the great war will have been wholly in vain if the nations are still to compete in a mad struggle for supremacy in the power of destruction. The economic folly of such a policy is too manifest to be gainsaid. Is there not a sorrowful and bitter protest from millions on the verge of starvation in Europe and which must ring i4i the ears of every thoughtful person.\nContinued competition in armaments assuredly brings the nations to ultimate disintegration of existing civilization, the foundations of which have already been rudely shaken. How can it be otherwise if to those who ask for bread civilization gives armaments. In the boundary between Canada and the United States, unfortified for more than a century, save by a common trust which has never been\n\nviolated, and in the intimate friendship which that just confidence has maintained and strengthened, we have given to humanity a lesson which ought never to be forgotten in the determination of this supreme question.\nThat is dated January 8, 1921, and it goes to show that the outstanding men of Canada are to-day unanimously of the opinion that in view of our great indebtedness and of the burdens which bear upon us-a condition which is common to all nations-we should lessen expenditures for military purposes. In the face of the problems that confront us; in view of our burdens of taxation, which may be increased in a few days when the Budget is brought down; in view of the extent to which people are trying to find ways and means of meeting their income tax liabilities, the returns for which, must ba in by the end of this month-for all these reasons, I feel justified in moving that item No. 89 be reduced by $750,000.\nAmendment (Mr. McCoig) negatived: Yeas, 47; nays, 72."]
Samuel William Jacobs: We should like to have some particulars concerning this item.


Hugh Guthrie: The amount voted last year was $390,000, and the amount asked this year is $450,000, or an increase of $60,000. But even for the pre-war year of 1913-14, there was an expenditure on this vote of $392,000, so that there is not a very great increase over that pre-war year.
The general purpose of the vote is for the cadet services in Canada. Under the provisions of section 64 of the Militia Act cadet corps may be of three classes in Canada: First, those composed of pupils at colleges and schools controlled by the government of the province in which they are situated; second, those composed of pupils at colleges and schools not under government control, and third, those composed of lads who, with the permission of their parents or guardians, prefer to join a corps unconnected with any educational establishment. We have the three classes of cadet corps in Canada now.
It is proposed to provide for the instruction of 85,000 cadets, there being almost that number at the present time enrolled in Canada. The cost is two dollars each for the first fifty and one dollar each for those in excess of fifty in each company or corps under the same instructor, and for uni-

forms for 48,000 cadets, an allowance of $1.25 per cadet. In 1914, 11,408 cadets were trained for six days. During the summer of 1921, it is proposed to train 8,000 for eight days. There will thus be 3,000 fewer cadets trained than in the year before the war, but there will be two days' longer training. For general training in school and out of camp, the expenditure proposed is $321,050; for the cadet camp for 1921, the expenditure proposed is $128,260, making a total expenditure of $449,310.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the minister not think that we could worry along with the same number of cadets that we trained last year at a cost of $390,000, seeing that we have to pay about $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 on the deficit on our Canadian National railways more this year than last year?


Hugh Guthrie: I am rather surprised at the suggestion of my hon. friend, because the demand for increased cadet training comes from the city of Montreal and particularly in regard to the schools. The figure of enrolment of cadets has gone up very largely; it is now up to 84,000, and if the Protestant schools of Montreal adopt the system, as it is expected they will adopt it, there will be another very , large increase. I do not think we could ask for a smaller contingent than 8,000 at the annual camp. The rest of the cadets receive training at the schools or in their classes. For the purpose of the camp we are asking for 8,000 cadets, or 3,000 less than the year before the war.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister will admit that the training of lads in these public schools must be considered as more or less of a luxury, if I may so term it. Could not this cost be reduced^to the same amount as last year? As I have just pointed out, we need this money much more than we did last year. There ought to be some paring in some of the departments. The minister seems to adopt a hard and fast rule; he is riding with top-boots and spurs; he insists upon having the whole of this amount which is mentioned in the Estimates, and he is not agreeable in cutting down any sums whatever. It is patent, I think, to every hon. member in this chamber that the training of cadets is not an essential feature in the life of the country at the present time, and if there is any place where we could cut down expenditure, it ought to be in these matters. The
minister says that he is surprised that I should object to this, seeing that the city of Montreal is one of the chief sinners in demanding this increase.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say "sinners."


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not responsible for the conscience of every citizen in Montreal, which is a large city of nearly 800,000 people. I suppose the citizens of Montreal, being rather astute people, finding that this money is so easily obtainable, do not see why they should not get a share of it while the getting is good. This is certainly an item which we on this side are strongly objecting to, and I would move that the amount be reduced to $390,000, the same as last year.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I regret exceedingly that the hon. member seeks to reduce this very important vote. My great regret is that the appropriation is not double this amount, because the inauguration of the cadet service in Canada was of the greatest benefit to this country. The high school and public school cadet corps inculcate into the youth of this country patriotism, discipline, and the benefits of physical development. The record of the cadets in the war is a record of which any country ought to be proud. I think I am safe in saying that at least 50,000 cadets who went through training in the schools, enlisted in the Canadian Expeditibnary Force. As I said before, the physical development, the discipline and the inculcation of patriotism in the youth of this country are worth millions of dollars to Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has made the statement that military training inculcates patriotism in the youth of this country. Well, it is patriotism at some other person's expense. If the parents of these boys are so patriotic, surely they ought to pay $1.50 or $2 in order to see that patriotism is fostered and inculcated. Any person who wants the other fellow to pay for his education in patriotism is a very poor sort of patriot.


Mr. ROBB:: I have in mind that some years ago a previous Minister of Militia announced to the House that he had received a grant from some person, I am not sure just who, for this purpose. Is there a special endowment grant for this purpose?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the fund created by Lord Strathcona. It is invested and

produces $20,000 a year, which is administered under a special trust. The whole income from the fund is devoted to the training of cadets, and is divided among the various provinces of Canada. A meeting of the trust was held within the last six weeks, and I think all the provincial educational institutions were represented at the meeting. The money was divided on that occasion on a proportionate basis as between the provinces.


James Alexander Robb: And this vote is in relation to that grant?


Mr. McCREA:: We have listened to arguments, especially from military men, as to the necessity for military training, and the virtues it develops. I think it would be well for us to review the past for a moment or two, and we need go no further back" than the last war, to see whether military training is valuable or not. This country, previous to the war, had been spending annually large sums of money on military training. When the war broke out, quite a large percentage of the men on whom the country's money had been spent for annual drill did not go to the front at all, for some reason or other. There is no man in this House or outside who has more respect than I have for the man, whether he had previous military training or not, who went to the front and defended our country in her hour of need, but I wish to point out some facts which I think should be a guide to us in deciding whether or not it is really in the best interests of the country that every man should receive a military training. I have said that a large percentage of those who had had military training previous to the war did not enlist, and of those who had received military training and did enlist many went over to the other side as majors and colonels and officers of other rank. When they got over to England they found that there was no place for them in their respective ranks, and as they did not wish to step down and become a private, they remained in England and did not do the fighting.


John Allister Currie: How many?


Francis N. McCrea: The great percentage of the men who went over to France and did the fighting had never had military training at all until they enlisted, and they made just as good soldiers and defended their country just as well as the men who had had military training. What about the great number of men who had had mili-

tary training in this country and who went over to England as colonels, generals, majors, and everything else, spent their time in England and never saw a battle? Was military training valuable in their case? Is it wise in the face of these facts that every man should receive a military training from his youth up, so that when war comes he will be able to say: "I am a colonel, and if I get an appointment as a colonel, I will fight, but if I don't, I won't." For that is what happened. Our experience in the last war was that the men who had had no military training at all were just as willing to serve their country as the men who had had training. In view of these facts, and the heavy financial strain that this country is under, I would plead with the Minister of Militia to cut down every dollar of expenditure he possibly can in all directions. We have no money to spare. I really do not know that this country is in such a desperate haste for money to be spent for military purposes for some years to come. I think the war we have just gone through has been a lesson to most nations, and that they will avoid war as far as possible in future. Let us commence by avoiding this military expenditure.


Oliver Robert Gould: I should like to answer a statement made by the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn). I am of the opinion that there is a war party in Canada, and if the people of this country were here to-night and could see the hon. gentlemen who are supporting these items they would find out who belong to the war party. On March 31 of last year I placed myself on record as being opposed to the spirit of militarism, and I have not changed my ideas on that subject in any respect since then. I referred last year to the instance in 1870, when militaristic Germany defeated militaristic France. I can imagine the same sort of thing carried to an extreme by the war party in this country. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia gives the credit to the cadet training for all the virtues these youths possess after having undergone a course of training. It is not entitled to the credit. "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die." It is simply a case of subordinating the will of the boy who is growing into manhood to the will of one they call a superior. They say this training makes the boy strong and gives him great self-control. That is the reason, I suppose, why we have

the very common saying about a person swearing like a trooper.
I would ask the minister if this item has anything to do with the purpose indicated in the statement that was made by a brigadier general of Military District No. 12, to the effect that a military course would he given in the provincial university of Saskatchewan this year, which would embrace all the engagements in the war, attack, defence, and so on. Is a similar course to be given in the other provincial universities? I have received protests from the people because of the institution of this course, and I might also say that I have received protests in connection with the $500,000 endowment fund created by Lord Strathcona for military training in the public schools. There are a great number of people who object to their children receiving military training at school. While it is claimed it is optional, if the child in his innocence does not inform his parent it may be taken for granted that the parents consent, and the boy will be trained. When it is found out, the parents disapprove. I want to know if it is the policy of this country to start giving the boy military training when he is at school, and to follow that up through the universities. If so, I can imagine the time when we shall have expenditures similar to those in the United States. I should like to put certain figures on Hansard, and if people will read the few remarks I make, and pay particular attention to the facts I cite-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Oliver Robert Gould: Well, let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the feeling is rampant in this country that the military spirit is too much in evidence. Now, the following are the United States appropriations for the year 1920:
Past Wars	$3,855,482,585
Future Wars	 2,424,138,677
Civil Departments	 181,087,225
Public Works	 168,303,557
Education and	Science....	57,093,661


Hugh Guthrie: From what source is the hon. member quoting in regard to the United States?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am quoting from the United States trade returns.


Hugh Guthrie: From the trade returns?


Oliver Robert Gould: The figures are taken from the report of the United States Auditor General.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, they are very different from the figures furnished us.


Oliver Robert Gould: They are totally different from the way you have them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Oliver Robert Gould: If hon. gentlemen opposite want the percentages, I will give them.


Hugh Guthrie: No; I do not want them.


Oliver Robert Gould: These are the percentages: For public works, three per cent; for education and science, one per cent; for civil departments, three per cent, for past wars, 68 per cent, and for future wars, 25 per cent. Compare these expenditures for civil government, for public works, and for education and science, with the tremendous appropriations for war, and you will see what the upkeep of military establishments means. There are people in this country who would lead Canada into the same condition. Last year I rose and protested against the continuance of this military idea, and I repeat that protest on this occasion. I deplore the fact that there are men in this country who see fit to prolong an extensive military establishment, and hon. members will find that the words uttered on this side to-night in protest against this extraordinary and inordinate expenditure will be echoed by the people at the first opportunity. I am sure of this.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Let me reply to some observations made by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea). The first statement he made was that there was no use in training a militia because the experience of the last war had shown that militia men did not take part in the war. I do not know for what part of the country he speaks, but so far as the part of the country from which I come, and other parts with which I am familiar, are concerned, I will say that every known militia man got into the war as soon as he could. The hon. member further said that the nonsoldier, the man who had not been trained, had done as well as the soldier who had undergone training. One sometimes hears this statement outside, and there could be no greater fallacy. The fact of the matter is that in the first division the greater proportion of the non-commissioned officers and officers were men who had seen lengthy service in the Canadian militia, and who owed their entire adaptability to the training they had received in the militia. Subsequently, as further divisions were



created, the men who had received their training in the militia, profiting by the additional experience gained in the war, rose to the command of all the higher formations, and throughout the war, not only in our service, but in every other service, it was absolutely demonstrated that the man who had received the most training was the best man. He was the man who was trusted both by those under him and by his superiors; and to suggest now that training is of no value is not only fallacious, but is also dangerous and detrimental to the best interests of this country, which has relied in the past, as it will probably do in the future, upon trained men. The member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), like many others who think as he does, asks the question: where is the enemy? I took the trouble the other day to read the debates in this House on these very Estimates in 1914, in 1899, and in 1884, and it is interesting to find, although it is regrettable, that the House has always contained a certain number of men who were prepared to criticise these Estimates with no greater intelligence than these gentlemen display.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Some exception has
been taken to the proposal for cadet training, and objection has been offered particularly to the idea put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) that this training inculcates sentiments of patriotism in the young men of the country. The hon. gentleman from Assiniboia deprecated the inculcation into the minds of these young men of the military spirit. Well, I know of no quality of greater value to the country in time of need than the military spirit. But for a high military spirit in this country we could not have raised the army we did, and could not have had the success we had. I cannot for the life of me understand the outlook of a man who deprecates the spirit that impels men to the front in time of danger and inspires them with the belief that they can do no greater service to the state than to lay down their lives for it; and I am forced to say that if this country had contained any considerable number of people holding the views of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) and the hon. member for Assiniboia, Canada would have curled its tail between its legs and crawled under cover.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: At the
risk of being termed an ignoramus by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach)-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He knows it all.


Levi Thomson: I must protest against what I might term, if it were not perhaps unparliamentary, his impudent suggestion in his closing remarks; and certainly 1 utterly disagree with him on the question of the value of militarism and the military spirit. I know quite a number of boys who went to the front, having been closely associated with many of them, and I can say that the vast majority of the young men who went to the war when men were most needed, had no military training, although they were just as good as any man who ever fought in the trenches.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Excuse me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Antrobus Griesbach: May I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Antrobus Griesbach: I want to ask my hon. friend if he knows of any soldiers that fought in the front line trench in France that did not have six months training?


Levi Thomson: I know
of soldiers who went to the front who had not the slightest training until the war came on.


William Antrobus Griesbach: They had six months training.


Levi Thomson: They
trained during the war and not before it, and they were just as good soldiers as the fellows that had been trained. I think my hon. friend made a reflection on these men because they went at the very time they were most needed and they were the most patriotic. They were not men imbued with the military spirit; they were utterly devoid of that spirit. They did not want anything of the kind, they hated the idea -of going to war, hut they believed it was their duty to go and they went. These are the men who saved the country, these are the men who saved the situation, not our militarists. I do not wish to oppose any reasonable expenditure for military purposes, and I would not have risen had it not been for the strange remarks which my hon. friend made. I think those remarks were utterly uncalled for and that my hon friend should apologize for making them. Now let me say this: I have stated

that I do not wish to oppose any reasonable expenditure for military purposes. I think this is a time when instead of increasing military expenditure we should take a military holiday and cut out military expenditure as far as we can. Just at the present time there does not seem to be any great necessity for it to my mind. In my boyhood days I underwent military training too, and I believe there was more need for it then than there is now; there was more chance of war then than there is at present. I like to see the boys taking a military training when they feel like it, but I see no reason-and no legitimate excuse has yet been given that I have heard -why we should increase this expenditure for cadets. The suggestion was. I think, to cut it down. I see no reason why we should not do so. I see no reason why at the present time, with the present financial situation as it is, we should not cut down the military expenditure, at least for a year or two. I would ask the Minister of Militia to try and take the suggestion into his consideration. I believe that in some particulars he has been cutting down considerably. I believe he has been trying to cut military expenditures down hut I think he has not gone far enough. He has not gone as far as the people of the country think he should go, and as far as we have a right to expect him to go.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle is trying to take a reasonable view of the situation and I want to show him that I have been reasonable also. I think one good way of showing that is to put Canada side by side with almost all the other civilized countries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I do not know how you can form a fair estimate if you do not make a comparison with some other country. We must compare ourselves with the Australians who are very nearly in our situation, with the New Zealanders who are somewhat in our situation, with our friends in the United States-a nation of intelligence-and with the European countries with whom we were allied. They have some intelligence and so has the Mother Country. Now if we are below any of the countries I have enumerated in our proposed military, naval and air expenditure do not hon. members think I have established the fact that we have been fairly reasonable? Do hon. members know what we propose to expend this year in Canada? This is the proposal: For this year the 1461
military expenditure proposed in these Estimates is $11,890,000, the naval expenditure $3,726,980 and the air expenditure, including civil aviation, $1,625,000 making a total for defence purposes, including civil aviation, of $17,241,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about the navy?
Is the navy included?


Hugh Guthrie: I have included it. I am told that my figures for the naval expenditure include provision for wireless operations and the like. The total is seventeen and a quarter millions in round numbers or $2.15 per head for the people of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Too much.


Hugh Guthrie: Now go to Australia. There the average is $6.13 per head. Go to New Zealand and the average is $5.82 per head.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Too much.


Hugh Guthrie: Go to Great Britain and the amount there is $22.36 per head, and to the United States where it is $13.13.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Hugh Guthrie: It is all very well for hon. members to say "No" but is not the comparison I make a fair one? If it is not, with what country am I to make a comparison.


Samuel William Jacobs: Have we the money?


Hugh Guthrie: Let me mention these facts: Last year we proposed twelve and a half million dollars and the House voted it. We spent between nine and a half and ten millions. I have cut that down under the Estimates of this year by $643,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: Continue it.


Hugh Guthrie: Have my hon. friends heard anybody pay me a compliment for doing so? I have not heard any myself. As I say, we have cut the Estimates this year by $643,000


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do some more cutting.


Hugh Guthrie: -without a word of approval being heard from hon. gentlemen opposite. I say also that in comparison with all the civilized countries I have enumerated our expenditure for this purpose is the lowest by dollars, and dollars and dollars.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps we are not
civilized.


Hugh Guthrie: We have cut the expenditure right down to the lowest margin of safety and anybody who is satisfied with a reasonable expenditure should, I think, support the modest programme we put forward on this occasion. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle knows as well as I do that the cost of maintaining the military organization to-day is just double what it used to be. Our wages are increased by ninety to one hundred per cent for all ranks. Our clothing is over one hundred per cent dearer than it was in pre-war days. Our food allowance is over one hundred per cent greater. The cost of transportation is seventy to eighty per cent dearer. Take my $11,900,000 proposal to-day and apply the prices on the basis of the value of money as it existed in 1905 or 1906 and we are down to an actual expenditure of five or six millions1-we are back to what we spent in the early days of Sir Frederick Borden's regime. Surely that is a reasonable proposal which my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle can support.


Levi Thomson: I do not know what the military expenditure was in the years 1906 and other years.


Hugh Guthrie: It was' between five and six million dollars. I will give my hon. friend the exact figures because I have them here. For 1907-08 the expenditure was $5,868,000, and comparing the value of the dollar then and the purchasing power of the dollar now the expenditure proposed is just about $6,000,000 at the present time. For 1908-09 the expenditure was $6,749,000; for 1909-10, $6,109,000; for 1910-11, $7,026,000; for 1911-12, $8,199,000; for 1912-13, $9,376,000; for 1913-14, $11,-
278,000.	Now I think with these figures, and the statement I have made, my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-who I know is inclined to be reasonable in these matters -will conclude that this is a reasonable proposal and one that ought to be supported.


Levi Thomson: If my hon. friend has not been congratulated I will congratulate him on having made the reduction he has. I am sorry that I cannot congratulate him to a much further extent because I do not think his reasoning is at all good. He compares us with other nations and says the comparison is a fair one. As a matter of fact we are not in the same position as any of these nations. My hon. friend knows very well that the position in Australia and New Zealand is very different from what it is here. People

in Australia and New Zealand are frightened of Japan. What are we frightened of? Are we afraid of the United States?	.


John Allister Currie: Yes, and so is Japan.


Levi Thomson: If we are, I do not
think any militia we raise will save us.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a very
patriotic boast.


Levi Thomson: What about the European nations? What is the use of comparing us with them?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not.


Levi Thomson: Will you undertake
to say that we are establishing a militia to protect us from our neighbours? That is what the people of Europe are doing to-day. Now, let me say to my hon. friend with regard to the comparative expenditure in 1905 and 1906, when it was about half what it is now, and when it is true the dollar was worth about double its present value, I quite agree that practically the expenditure was roughly the same. But the situation to-day is different. At that time the finances of the country were booming, we had lots of money to spend; we have not now. The Government is continually telling us that we must curtail our expenditure. People are clamouring for expenditure in my part of the country. When I go to the Minister of Public Works I say to him, "I understand the Minister of Finance is close, but I must lay this proposal before you." That is all I dare do. The Government say that this or that thing should be done, but we cannot do it, I think the Government are perfectly justified in assuming that attitude, and I am prepared to back them up in everything tending towards retrenchment.


John Wesley Edwards: Was not the expenditure in 1906 a larger percentage of the revenue of that year than this expenditure is of (the revenue of this year?


Levi Thomson: I agree, but surely
my hon. friend knows that that is not a fair comparison. What is the expenditure largely caused by? By the aftermath of .the war, is it not?


John Wesley Edwards: I was asking if the
expenditure in 1906 was not a larger percentage of the revenue of that year than this expenditure is of the revenue this year.


Levi Thomson: Quite true, but my
hon. friend is drawing a herring across

the path. He knows that the greater part of the revenue now raised is for paying the debts incurred by the war. Why does not my hon. friend mention that fact if he wants to be fair? At this time I see no special occasion for either military or naval expenditure. Before the war we always had the fear of Germany hanging over us, and we did recognize that there was (some danger of a great European war. But that is a thing of the past. The great need now is not to prepare for war, but to save every cent we can in order to get our country in the financial position it should be. Therefore, while I have to congratulate my hon. friend the minister in what reductions he has made, I wish he would go further and entitle himself to still greater congratulation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of very briefly replying to some observations made on the opposite side of the House which to a certain extent have been directed at me. I do not propose to continue the discussion with any heat, because the subject matter is of such outstanding importance that in comparison any individual member's personality fades into utter insignificance. The member for Frontenac accused pacifists-and I am proud to call myself one-of being the cause of the late war. The people who wanted to be peaceful, according to the member for Frontenac, are those responsible for the war. If they had only been prepared to put on a more ag-12 m. gressive front the war would have been avoided. Might I tell him that I interpret the history of the last few years very differently indeed. It seems to me that the fundamental causes of the war were the conflicting interests of European imperialism, that the greatest sinner in that respect was Germany, but that no great nation is free from blame. And I would remind him and other hon. members that as great an authority as Lloyd George himself said that the civilized nations of Europe had more or less slipped into the war. I would beg hon. members to read the White Paper issued by the British Government shortly after the war started, and I believe if they calmly consider the story disclosed in those telegrams and letters, when one chancellory was frantically telegraphing to another, when one ambassador was in hourly communication with other ambassadors and with his home office, they will realize that great agencies of destruction were put in motion, and once
in motion those at the head of affairs could no longer control them.
The member for West Edmonton (Mr. Griesbaeh) referred in language, which I doubt was parliamentary, to the fact that if there had been many people in this country like the member for Assiniboia and myself at the beginning of the war Canada would have curled its tail between its legs and taken refuge under the barn. Might I tell him and other hon. members that, what rallied the great British people in support of the cause of the Allies, and what rallied the Canadian people to that cause was the belief that they were fighting against militarism, that they were fighting against that spirit which has been so aptly demonstrated by the member for West Edmonton himself to-night. What raised our Canadian army? I did not go to the war, I did not think it my duty, but a great number of my friends did, and many of them will never come back. A great number of those men went, not because they were imbued with the military spirit, but because they hated it, because they believed they were fighting a war to end war; and if they look down from the place of their last reward now it must be with sad hearts to see how little this war has ended war.
Of all controllers of foreign policy the militarists are the most dangerous. In Europe before the war who was really in control of foreign policy but men like Von Tirpitz, who imposed his will upon Germany, and great soldiers in other lands who imposed their will upon their governments. When a war was on it was natural enough that the soldier would dominate policy. Well, he dominated policy in Europe for five years, and where is Europe to-day as a result of militarism? I do not propose to attribute the blame for the war to this or that nation, I believe, as I have said before, that the greatest sinner was the late Empire of Germany, but I believe that no militaristic nation can escape some measure of blame. But to what pass have the soldiers brought the world? To this pass, that Europe, probably the most highly civilized part of the known world, is to-day on the verge of bankruptcy, that this generation of young men has been largely wiped out, that children born in the warring countries during the war have died in infancy or survived only to drag out a miserable existence by reason of the fact that their health had been undermined. That is the result of allowing soldiers to control policy. You

cannot blame them. No matter how good their intentions may be, if their minds and hearts are set on organizing machines for destroying their fellowmen, it is no wonder that they want to see those machines in action sometime. I have been shocked, as a great many hon. members have been, to hear the light references made by some people to the "next war." If there has been a lie which has deluded humanity for generations-aye, for centuries-it has been that in time of peace we must prepare for war. I say with all the conviction of which I am capable that if you prepare for war you will have war, and it is about time that the world and humanity tried to prepare for peace. If to take that view is to lack intelligence, I must plead guilty to the charge. If belief in that is to be compared to the action of a cur-


William Antrobus Griesbach: If the hon. member believes that to prepare for war produces war, does he believe also the converse, that by not preparing for war you escape war?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I believe that, in very large measure. I believe that if you prepare for peace you have far more chance of having peace than if you prepare for war.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I would point out that we
must be doing that, because the minister has reduced the total Estimates for this year by $640,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am quite willing to give him thanks for that reduction. It is as if we asked him for a loaf and he handed us a wafer, but we ought to be thankful that he has gone that far. I put it to hon. members: Is it wise to refuse the request made from this side?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, perhaps those
who are noisiest on the other side do not represent the real feelings of the Canadian people. My belief is that when we come to vote on this item there will be many men on the other side who would, if thew felt themselves free from the party trammels which bind them, be only too happy to vote with us.
Mr. McGIBBON Muskoka) : It is quite evident that the hon. member for Brome and many others have forgotten the history of the last few years. As I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Brome I felt that I was transported back to the year 1913 and was listening again to the speeches
TMr. McMaster.l
delivered from the opposite side on that occasion. We all remember the arguments advanced then to the effect that there was no danger; that the horizon was clear- arguments advanced, Sir, up to within sixty days prior to the outbreak of the war. Hon. gentlemen are repeating their tactics of 1914. What was the condition of that year? Germany was able within fourteen days after the declaration of war to put 225 trained divisions in the field. France, the next best prepared, could put only 75; Russia 50, and Great Britain only 6. Is there a sane man here to-night who would say that had Britain been able to put 60 or 70 fully equipped divisions into the field at that time, as she was later, war would have broken out? If there is, let him refer to history. Let him read the messages that came from the President of France, not to the Government of England but to the King of England himself. Let him read these in the light of history and see whether the whole war would not have been averted and the great list of casualties resulting from the war avoided if England had been prepared as I suggest. We have been told tonight that Canada produced an army which, although untrained, was equal to any in the world. England fought her first severe battle September 25, 1915. Of course there were engagements before that, but the first battle of great magnitude was fought on that day. And why? Because it took them all that time to get ready-and they were not ready then. Every man knows who had anything to do with the war that England was not ready until the following year, 1916. The hon. member for Brome askr where Europe is to-day. I ask him where the British Empire would be to-day had it not been for the trained troops of France who stood in the gaps in France and Flanders while the British Empire was getting ready. That is the question that we should take into consideration. As to putting green troops into the trenches, you could not make a more preposterous proposition to any army in the world. Those of us who were over there saw untrained troops come in occasionally because it was necessary, but only with dire results not only to themselves but to the rest of the army. We should get back to some sanity on this question. Canada, like every country, must be prepared to defend herself; and we must train new men-you cannot expect these old soldiers to be going on year after year and fighting the battles of the country while others sit down and pass their time in

peace and ease. Besides, the great bulk of them feel that they have done their duty.
I say that when hon. gentlemen challenge the passing of items involving a few paltry dollars to prepare for the protection of this country in case of emergency they are employing the same tactics, adopting the same short-sighted policy, using the same silly, incompetent arguments which characterized their utterances oh this subject before the great conflict broke out in 1914.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would like to know what present or immediate danger the minister referred to when he said that we had cut down the Estimates to the lowest margin of safety. Was it Japan? Was it the United States? Was it any country? Well, if the minister does not wish to explain, I can continue for a little while. Apparently he is not clear in his own mind from whom we may apprehend the danger. If we are proposing this large expenditure for the purpose of developing a military spirit- and that seems to be the only reason so far given-then it is my view that we should cut out the military expenditure altogether. In that respect, I share the view of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), that if you teach people the use of deadly weapons, if you bring them to glorify war and the making of war, you will inspire them with a spirit which will bring them to use those weapons and to believe in war as a settlement of their difficulties. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Brome, it has been the experience of the past five years that the more militarism is encouraged in the country, the more we may expect at some time or another to enter into a deadly conflict. We are, it is true, spending about the same amount as we were spending previously to the war. The minister has pointed out that we are spending something like $12,000,000, or rather really for military and defence purposes, $17,000,000. That sum of $17,000,000 is devoted to defence purposes only; but the minister refuses to tell us what we are defending against, what enemy we have in view, and I cannot for the life of me see any on the present horizon. We have this amount of $17,000,000 for no real immediate danger, and the minister wishes us to vote it because it is no greater than the amount voted in 1913. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that, in 1913, a large number of people in Canada believed that there was an immediate danger that war was about to break out owing to the very fact that European nations were arming
and preparing for war at some time or another, so that there might have been an excuse at that time for military preparations. Personally, I am inclined to share the view of the leader of the Opposition of 1909, the ex-Prime Minister of this country, the hon. member for King's, (Sir Robert Borden) who, in 1909, stated that the $6,000,000 appropriation for militia purposes should be cut in half. I am inclined to share that view, and I would have been inclined to share that view in 1909; but if the militia vote should have been cut in half in 1909, when we had a real danger to face, surely we should have no expenditure at all when in the last war we have done away with the greatest enemy whom we would have had to face, and with the only enemy whom we could possibly be called upon to face.


Frank S. Cahill: As regards expenditures in the United States, what amount is for military purposes, as apart from naval expenditure?


Hugh Guthrie: These are the figures
of the last Congress: Military, $639,275,503; naval, $644,515,731; air, $95,000,000; total, $1,378,791,234. This is the expenditure of the national government for military, naval and air purposes; but in addition to this, there is a very heavy expenditure by the states themselves on the National Guards which are maintained in each state. The National Guard expenditure, by the states, is not included in the items which I have given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Clothing and necessaries, $264,346.
Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister please
explain the huge increase over last year?


Hugh Guthrie: The general purpose
of this vote is for the purchase of specialsized clothing, plain clothes for discharged men, badges and miscellaneous articles, and to provide for the clothing of Highland and other regiments which have distinctive uniforms, also articles of clothing and necessaries such as kit bags, brushes, combs, razors, towels, etc. The Estimate is on the probable requirements for the year. The pre-war vote for this item was $700,000. Last year the vote was only $60,000. We utilized to the fullest extent the material which was left over at the end of the war. The greatest difficulty at the present time in regard to clothing and equipment is that we have many of the small sizes and many of the large sizes; but the intermediate sizes are pretty

well out of stock, and as these are the most called for, it is necessary to replace a very large number of the intermediate sizes during the present year.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the clothing covered
by this Estimate to be manufactured by the Government, or is that being contracted for outside?


Hugh Guthrie: The cloth is manufactured expressly for this purpose by various mills in the country. Then the contracts for the manufacture of the clothing into suits or for whatever purpose it is used, are let through the Purchasing Commission, formerly known as the War Purchasing Commission.


Samuel William Jacobs: Tenders are called for
in the ordinary way?


George Gordon: What about the cost
of the cloth? The textile plants are closed down with no work, and wool is at rock bottom prices, perhaps lower than it has been since eight or ten years before the war. The result is that prices must be exceptionally low on account of the low prices of materials which will enter into the composition of the cloth which will be sold to the department.


Hugh Guthrie: We have on hand an
abundance of cloth for the present year and, perhaps, for the next year. We will not need to purchase any cloth, but we will need to manufacture that cloth into clothing. I do not know at what price that cloth was bought; I fancy it was secured during the war, and probably at war-time prices.


George Gordon: Was this cloth bought
during the war in anticipation that it would be used for war purposes, or was it purchased after the armistice from the Auburn Woollen Mills and other firms?


Hugh Guthrie: It was purchased before the armistice. We have bought no cloth since the armistice except some for Highland uniforms.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Where is this clothing
made into uniforms?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand the cloth was all made by Canadian manufacturers, not all at one place.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In Montreal?


Hugh Guthrie: The orders were distributed and the contracts were let by public competition.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can we have the names of the firms who contracted for this?
[Mr. Guthrie.1


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose there would
be a number of contracts made over a period of several years during the war, long before my time. I fancy the contracts could be got. This item is for the manufacture of the cloth into clothing.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My question was
whether any of this clothing is made into clothing in Montreal? If so, to what extent and by whom?


Hugh Guthrie: One of the largest
contracts entered into during the war for the manufacture of clothing was in Montreal.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Cannot the minister
reduce the item to that extent?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister give
the details of this item?


Hugh Guthrie: I have it arranged here by military districts, but I suppose the totals will serve the purpose. Clothing, $28,242, necessaries $3,027.19, Permanent Force clothing for discharged soldiers $2,890.62, annual allowance for warrant officers in the Permanent Force $1,901.21, outfit allowances $8,790.83, washing, cleaning, and repairing clothing $3,566.77, allowances to regiments, active militia, $44.55; total for clothing $48,470.85.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I asked the minister to give me the total of the different items. He has given me a total of $48,000. The total here is $264,000. Where is the rest?


Hugh Guthrie: The remaining $220,000 is made up of the cost of manufacture of the clothing. We have to outfit the units as they are established, both the militia units, and the Permanent Force.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How much does it cost a yard to manufacture?


Hugh Guthrie: It is done by the suit.
I have not the figures before me, but the $220,000 is based on the number of units that we think are likely to be outfitted during the present year.	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: Could we not put the entire army in kilts and in that way save a considerable sum?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I was just coming to the kilted gentlemen. What amount has been set aside for Highland clothing?


Hugh Guthrie: No amount has been set aside, but as the regiments are authorized, the amount required will be taken out of this $220,000. The allowance for Highland uniforms last year was $8,000

odd. I am informed that it is likely the expenditure this year will amount to $15,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it the policy of the Government to encourage the wearing of kilts and expensive clothing by the regiments?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that the Government has any policy on the subject. These are matters upon which I, as a member of the Government, am advised by those who are perhaps best able to advise me. We have a very brilliant military staff, who are thoroughly familiar with these things. Where a Highland regiment can be recruited to advantage, and the people of the locality want a Highland regiment, we permit it. The Highland uniform costs considerably more than the ordinary uniform. The Government is not trying to encourage the wearing of one uniform more than another.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We all know that the Highland regiments are very good, and everybody approves of our raising them, but if a man prefers to go without his trousers and wants to wear a skirt, I do not see why the country should pay for that. The ordinary khaki uniform was used for the great majority of the soldiers in the late war. I have every respect for the Highland regiments, and for both my hon. friends opposite. The Highland regiments did well in the war, but they would possibly have done just as well if they had been wearing trousers, and I do not see why the country should be put to any extra expense in providing Highland uniforms.


Hugh Guthrie: It involves no extra expense to the country. The allowance to the Highland regiment is the same. The regiment makes up the difference.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: That is the whole trouble, that; the patriotism of Scotchmen in this country is traded on to keep up the Highland regiments. As long ago as Lord Chatham's time, it was the policy of the British army to enlist a certain number of Highland regiments. Why? Because they fought better. I am not a Highlander, but I could tell you ten thousand tales of heroism that have come about through this principle of encouraging the raising of Highland regiments with all their traditions. The greatest fighter in the world is the Scotch Highlander. I appeal to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition whether the Mackenzie tartan
should be measured by dollars or cents in the British or Canadian army. If I had the time, I could move this House with what has been accomplished by the Highland regiments. It is a disgrace that in times past the patriotism of men who loved the Highland traditions has been traded upon to bear the extra expense of equipping these men with the Highland uniform.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I had not the slightest intention of disparaging the Highland regiments in any way, or of insinuating that they were not as good as any other regiment. I agree with my gallant friend from Skeena that many thousands of deeds of heroism have been performed by men in the Highland regiments, but my point is that if the commanding officers prefer that their regiments should be clothed in the Highland uniform I do not see why we should be put to the extra expense of equipping them in the Highland uniform.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has been told by the minister that the allowance for Highland regiments is the same as for the line regiments.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand the objection that my hon. friend is about to make. The minister told us that he gives the same amount to the Highland regiments as to the others, but he has just told us also that we have had to buy clothing since the war. We have had to get a large amount of new Highland clothing, although we should have had a lot of this, as well as ordinary khaki clothing, left over from our purchases during the war. That is the point I wish to make; I say that there was no necessity for purchasing Highland uniforms, which are very costly, as the minister says.


Hugh Guthrie: We have a lot of Highland clothing on hand, but we have not the particular tartan required by this regiment. In any case, it does not cost us any more to supply Highland clothing than it does to supply khaki. The difference between the Highland clothing and the khaki is charged against the regiment itself.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That does not answer my question.


John Allister Currie: I am a Highlander myself; there is not a drop of any other blood in my veins, and I do not see any valid objection to an Englishman, a Scotchman, or an Irishman joining a Highland regiment if he wishes. He is entitled to do so, and

some of the bravest men under my command were of these nationalities. I do not think that there is any objection, as the hon. member said, to men other than Scotchmen, joining Highland regiments.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I did not say that. I do want the hon. member to be fair to me this evening. I never said that no one should join Highland regiments but Scotchmen.


John Allister Currie: Well, that was the implication.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is no implication.


Georges Parent: Take it back.


John Allister Currie: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman. However, what I want to point out is that the kilt the Highlander wears will outlast at least ten pairs of trousers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


John Allister Currie: It is well known in the British Army that the uniform of the Highlander, although it costs more than the uniform of the linesman, gives greater service. I do not wish to make a jest of this matter at all, but I may say that there were men under my command who went to the war with kilts twenty years old, almost as good as new, and they fought in them for a year or two. There is no question that the kilt costs about twice or three times as much as a pair of trousers, but I firmly believe that it will outlast twenty pairs of trousers. I think the Minister of Militia would be acting wisely if he issued kilts to these Highland regiments in lieu of trousers, without making the regiments pay the difference in cost between the kilts and the trousers. The trousers cost something like $5 a pair, while the kilts cost $12, and it means quite a burden for the regiments to pay this difference. Now, there is no question about being able to recruit a Highland regiment if it is properly officered, and as regards their conduct, it is not necessary for me to say anything. We have besides myself one commanding officer here in this House who had charge of a Highland regiment, and he can tell of the actions of the Highlanders as well as I can. No one can doubt that, from the days of Pitt down to the present time, the Highlanders have always been ip the hardest part of the fight, ready to play the part of men, regardless of what nationalities such regiments might have been composed of. I know that many an Irishman has fought nobly in the ranks of the Highlanders, and altogether I do not think that
TMr. Currie.]
this question should occupy the time of the House.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not wish to pursue
the question of the relative merits of kilts over trousers, but I want some information as to what the minister estimates will be the cost of the full uniform for private soldiers.


Hugh Guthrie: It is between $17 and


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that for the making
alone?


Hugh Guthrie: The whole thing.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that the
Government has to supply the material.


Hugh Guthrie: The making costs between $7 and $9, and the whole thing comes to between $17 and $21.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Let me point out for the
information of my good friend opposite from George-


Hugh Guthrie: George Etienne Cartier.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Well, it is an unpronounceable name. Anyhow, I want to say for the information of that gentleman that, according to the best authority, a Highland regiment was formed after the capture of Palestine, known as the Jordan Highlanders, and they experienced considerable difficulty in deciding upon a motto, but finally devised one. It was: "No advance without security."


Levi Thomson: What
amounts have been expended in previous years on the manufacture of clothing? The minister, perhaps, can give us off-hand the various amounts spent on manufacture alone.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot split the item;
I have the amounts voted. In 1905, it was $430,000; in 1906-7, $317,000, in 1907-8, $331,000; in 1910, $350,000; in 1911, $445,000.


Levi Thomson: What was spent purely on manufacturing the clothing?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How many men does the
minister expect to clothe on $220,000?


Hugh Guthrie: We have from 40,000
to 50,000 to clothe this year in addition to those already supplied. We have certain sizes already made.
Mr. POWER. How many will be clothed out of this money?


Hugh Guthrie: The best way to arrive
at that would be to work it out at $7 or $8 apiece.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is not satisfactory.
The minister comes with an item of $220,000. How did he arrive at that sum? On what did he base his calculations? I do not want to submit any catch questions, but I want information.


Hugh Guthrie: The figures supplied by the Quarter-Master General, after going over the stores, show that we have uniforms in odd sizes for from ten to fifteen thousand men. There will be, according to him, twenty-five to thirty thousand uniforms to be made new. Now that is as near an estimate as I can give-it may run a little more, it may run a little less.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has the minister any
idea what number of uniforms were left over after demobilization?


Hugh Guthrie: Over 250,000 suits were on hand after the armistice.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How many have we now on hand?


Hugh Guthrie: Of course our stock was badly depleted by giving suits to men who desired them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In what way?


Hugh Guthrie: To returned men on demobilization.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would like to know from the minister what nuniber he has in stock?


Hugh Guthrie: We have still in stock about 75,000 suits of odd sizes and ten to twelve thousand suits, perhaps fifteen thousand, will be used this year. We also have in stock cloth for the manufacture of approximately 50,000 new uniforms.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Have any uniforms been disposed of by the Department of Militia, or by the Purchasing Commission, since the armistice, and to whom?


Hugh Guthrie: None since the armistice.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the minister answered yesterday that some cloth had been disposed of?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the minister stated that some military cloth, or cloth to be used for military purposes, had been disposed to fulfil certain contracts with Roumania?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not say that.
I said a street rumour had come to me to that effect. I made particular inquiry of the department to-day in respect to that rumour, and my information is that no cloth and no goods were disposed of by or through the Militia Department to Roumania.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Or by the Purchasing Commission either?


Hugh Guthrie: Not to the Purchasing Commission for Roumania either. I said last night, or when the Estimates were up before, that I had heardKa street rumour from a Montreal man that he had procured some military cloth which he had made up for Roumania. On inquiry at the department to-day I find that no goods were sold to Roumania by the Militia Department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I had occasion, either last year or the year before, to make application on behalf of one of my constituents to the War Purchasing Commission for some military cloth-some khaki cloth-and I was told that they had disposed of large stocks, and that the last stock was about to be disposed of. I know that returned soldiers and civil servants were permitted to buy from the War Purchasing Commission certain military cloth.
I do not wish to imply that this came through the Militia Department, but this was khaki cloth bought for the purposes of the war.


James Alexander Robb: 
Hugh Guthrie: I think I can give the information now. Before the armistice certain condemned clothing was disposed of through the War Purchasing Commission. Since the armistice none has been disposed of. We cannot tell where the clothing that was sold to the War Purchasing Commission went, and we would have no means of knowing.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then the only military clothing in the possession of the War Purchasing Commission either before or after the armistice was, if I understand the minister, condemned military clothing? Is that statement correct?


Hugh Guthrie: No stores that were unused or new or anything of the kind, that came into our hands, were sold or disposed of from the department after the armistice. Prior to the armistice it is just possible

that some of the cancelled orders-because there were a lot cancelled at the time- were sold by the War Purchasing Commission, but they did not go through our department in any way.


James Alexander Robb: It is now one o'clock. May I suggest to the minister that we pass this item with the understanding that we may later discuss anything relevant to it?


Hugh Guthrie: If the item is passed I have no objection.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Under protest and on division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m.
Wednesday, April 20, 1921.